test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Should class restrictions DC/DHC be removed?

Was tweaking some builds earlier this evening and was reminded just how awkward the class restriction for DC/DHC are with the current metagame.

Beam arrays can be used on every class and in any slot while DC/DHC cannot be used by regular cruisers and science vessels bar some exceptions.
Would the first step to achieving balance between beams and cannons not be the removal of the class restrictions?

E.g. there are reputation sets which offer both a DHC and beam array, but how many people will actually opt for the DHC when along with the other advantages the BA can be equipped on every vessel?

A drawback would be that single cannons lose out even more.

Should in your opinion the class restrictions be lifted?
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.

Comments

  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,865 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    Would the first step to achieving balance between beams and cannons not be the removal of the class restrictions?

    No, that does nothing to make DHCs and the current cannon boff powers more useful. If you want cannons to be more useful then we need buffs like:

    - Move CRF / CSV skills down one rank to match BFAW (Edit: this could be done without breaking things by changing the existing skills to +1 what they are now. So if you have CRF 2 slotted, it becomes CRF 3. CSV 3 becomes CSV 4.)
    - Add a CFAW skill for better AOE and point defense
    - Reduce the range penalty for DHCs
    - Increase the firing angle of DHCs to 90 degrees

    Any or all would help. Being able to equip 45-degree arc weapons on a slow turning cruiser will not.


  • This content has been removed.
  • thatcursedwolfthatcursedwolf Member Posts: 1,617 Arc User
    Would the first step to achieving balance between beams and cannons not be the removal of the class restrictions?

    No, that does nothing to make DHCs and the current cannon boff powers more useful. If you want cannons to be more useful then we need buffs like:

    - Move CRF / CSV skills down one rank to match BFAW (Edit: this could be done without breaking things by changing the existing skills to +1 what they are now. So if you have CRF 2 slotted, it becomes CRF 3. CSV 3 becomes CSV 4.)
    - Add a CFAW skill for better AOE and point defense
    - Reduce the range penalty for DHCs
    - Increase the firing angle of DHCs to 90 degrees

    Any or all would help. Being able to equip 45-degree arc weapons on a slow turning cruiser will not.


    Travel time for the damage packet is also an issue for cannons.

    Instead of changing how cannon damage works I'd change beams to doing their damage over time while still initiating instantly. Cannons are basically a stored/charged blast so all their damage should be in one wallop. Beams are more continuous damage.

    Beams, for some reason, deal their damage both instantly and in one packet.
    This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    I would rather see dual beam banks restricted to cruisers/science ships, and other such large ships that would have the excess energy to power them, than see the restriction lifted on dual/dual heavy cannons. Though i agree that increasing the arc on at least the dual cannons to 90 degrees would help even if just to make one of the two varieties of dual cannons more viable to use on the slower turning ships that can equip them. I mean than it is that you chose which cannon type fits the turning rate on your ship, which would give all three types of cannons each a use an not really leaving any as cannon fodder for vendering to an extent. Though i do agree both cannon/torpedo/beam abilities need to all be on the same level rank-wise.

    I kinda agree with the need to reduce the penalty of the range on dual/dual heavy cannons, though i wonder if making it that as you get closer beyond a certain point with dual cannons you get a buff to your damage based on how close you are to the target. To me this would make sense that at long range your damage would fall off as your cannon fire would dissipate, while as you get close the time between impacts decreases an so the damage would as well.

    Kinda would not mind if they made less of a cannon point defense ability, and more of a turret one that activated your turrets to prioritize small craft/torpedoes/mines over main targets, and that it is a toggled ability so it would remain active as long as you toggled it on yet this would mean that you would take a reduction in damage on larger targets if small-craft/torpedoes/mines were in the area. Just adding this into the cannon spread an rapid fire would work as well as a function that is either base-line, or is added to the higher ranks, though I could also see it come from a doff as well really.
  • kavasekavase Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    Should class restrictions DC/DHC be removed?

    Yes, yes it should.

    I 'lol' when I see new ships being introduced saying 'can load cannons'. Like it's a selling feature somehow.
    Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
  • jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    I would really only go yes to this if! they did a pass over them to make them well less useless on bigger ships, the one thing that makes them useless on anything but a Escort or alike is the DMG drop off and since anything lager than aforementioned would make them utterly useless imho​​
    JtaDmwW.png
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    THe other thing is that each cannon type should have different things it is good at. Like cannons are just the generic cannon that can be used on all ship types (maybe give them a longer range), while dual cannons are the faster firing cannon as you are basically stacking two cannons, while dual heavy cannons are those cannons built to pummel a target with heavy energy output bursts that would sacrifice some firng rate for the increased damage. Add in that each also is constructed to be the most useful on certain types of ships, like dual heavies are harder to keep on nimble targets an so are better on similar nimble ships, but something like a cannon or dual cannon are faster firing to get off more shots an having more range on their firing arc to keep targets in the cross hairs.

    I do like the idea of almost having beam arrays/banks more like damage over time attacks, that might do more damage overall than cannons, but that it is done over the entire channeling time of the attacks against a target. This would make using a hazard emitter heal better to combat a beam array/bank attack, while engineering team would be better against a cannon barrage attack. I still think that keeping the restriction intact at least with dual heavy cannons would make sense, maybe expand it to dual banks being for the heavier carrier/science/cruiser type ships, while upping the firing arc on dual cannons to 90 degrees.
  • angrybobhangrybobh Member Posts: 420 Arc User
    kavase wrote: »
    Should class restrictions DC/DHC be removed?

    Yes, yes it should.

    I 'lol' when I see new ships being introduced saying 'can load cannons'. Like it's a selling feature somehow.

    Exactly this. Why would I want to load cannons on anything in the current meta?

    Cannon range is a big issue. The firing arc is a small one. Combine those with slow travel, lack of useful traits, less skill support (mainly at the lower levels of boff abilities), high power cost, overcapping works less, and the maximum target limit of CSV makes them almost totally undesirable. If they removed them from the game entirely I would not even notice.

    How to fix them? I don't know. Single cannons should have a reason to even exist. Same goes for DCs. I suppose they have the 1 trick of more shots per volley if you can figure out which things proc per shot. They need more than that. DHCs are still fun but, like torpedoes (most builds), you are hurting your potential by even using them.
  • dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    Hey, wait a minute...

    Cannons on Cruisers, aka "Battle Cruisers" are a "KDF thing"... Where's all the "whiny Feds trying to steal faction identity" posts?
    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]
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    dareau wrote: »
    Hey, wait a minute...

    Cannons on Cruisers, aka "Battle Cruisers" are a "KDF thing"... Where's all the "whiny Feds trying to steal faction identity" posts?

    Because you're the one providing the comedy.

    OP, I don't see how removing the DC/DHC restriction on what ships can use it helps Cannons in general. If Cannons as a whole are to be more useful, they need to:

    - Alter the severe damage drop off with range

    - Bring Tactical Cannon abilities down to the same ranks as Beam abilities, i.e. start at Ensign instead of Lieutenant

    - Bring a sharp difference yet usefulness between Single Cannons, Dual Cannons, Dual Heavy Cannons. IMO, the previous 2 points will greatly help in general, but will not make SC and DC any better than they are now compared to DHCs. SC & DC need serious revamping.

    I don't have a problem with how CRF, CSV function. I wouldn't mess with those until the basics of how Cannons play out are altered. Also, changes to improve cannon usefulness should not be hidden behind a trait or ability.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    angrybobh wrote: »

    How to fix them? I don't know.

    Think you answered your own question already. Ranged damage drop under a small arc is the problem.

    I currently sit at ~80k DPS in ISA on one of my cannon builds. The only way to get those figures is to cannon scatter volley myself through the map getting as many targets in my arc as possible. Just too sad that the number of targets you can cover increases the more you keep your distance which then leads to the great damage loss. Adjusting the range damage drop with cannons would really mean fixing cannons and bringing them in line with other weapons in my opinion.

    As far as your comment towards single cannons is concerned I agree partially. I use one single cannon in front besides three DHCs to complete a set piece. On the turn rate 20 ship the parse of this cannon is close to the same of a DHC on an average run leading me to believe that single cannons could even be more beneficial than duals on ships with a slower turn rate, so they have the right to be around.

    In any case the #1 reason to use cannons over beams is fun! I would not trade it for anything in game.
    Post edited by peterconnorfirst on
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • p4hajujup4hajuju Member Posts: 214 Arc User
    Rapid fire 1 should be an ensign skill, then RF2 lt and RF3 lt.com. Same with scatter volley.

    And they should do something about single cannons.

    APO 1 should be a lt skill, APO 2 should be lt.com and APO 3 commander.

    Surgical Strikes 1 should be an ensign skill, SS2 lt and SS3 lt.com. It doesn't really work with embassy consoles because it slows the shooting down, it's already nerfed and there's not a lot of ships that can even use it.
    Galavant!
    "Use Temporal Skills to NERF EVERYTHING before it happened!" -Unknown source.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    dareau wrote: »
    Hey, wait a minute...

    Cannons on Cruisers, aka "Battle Cruisers" are a "KDF thing"... Where's all the "whiny Feds trying to steal faction identity" posts?

    That was way back when cannons were still good in the meta. Now, cannons on anything is a newbie thing, so all we can expect is the "why would you want to use cannons when beams are bettter" -posts.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,708 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    dareau wrote: »
    Hey, wait a minute...

    Cannons on Cruisers, aka "Battle Cruisers" are a "KDF thing"... Where's all the "whiny Feds trying to steal faction identity" posts?

    That was way back when cannons were still good in the meta. Now, cannons on anything is a newbie thing, so all we can expect is the "why would you want to use cannons when beams are bettter" -posts.

    Newbie doesn't do it justice IMO, but it certainly isn't mainstream build.
    I enjoy using Single Cannons, torpedoes and DHC and manage to squeeze enough performance out for advanced and elite content. It's not as easy to use as a BFAW, but a lot more rewarding and fun.

    I would actually place cannon builds in the expert category.

    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    If you look at the ranks on the abilities that to me is an indication of what they are meant to be used for.

    Cannon abilities are all higher ranks, therefore you'll really get the best out of them on high tac focused ships, i.e. escorts.

    Beams are all lower levels to allow a wider range of ships access to them, but to counter that the cannons should still be the better choice for sheer damage output on a tactical ship. But they clearly are not as beams are being used almost everywhere with the exception of a tiny amount of us running torp or cannon boats.

    I'd say it's much more complex than just the rank of the abilities that's the issue here:
    • Range dropoff is the real killer, you've just got to get so dammed close and by that stage a beam boat can kill the target from 10KM before you even get into position. Plus it puts you in the hotzone and is a risky business, which is fair enough but with the massive HP sponges you've gotta do it multiple times which is even more risky. It takes the whole purpose for high damage strafing runs out of the game if you can't do significant damage on the first pass.
    • Arcs are pretty tight, and a challenge when going at full tilt for defensive purposes. That makes cannons harder to use so they should be a lot more rewarding to play with, they clearly are not at the moment.
    • There's 3 types of cannons but working out which one is best or most useful is a nightmare. What purpose to single cannons have? Why do DHC's & DC's proc some stuff by shots fired and others by volley fired? How do you know what procs on what type of firing?
    • Accuracy overflow is a total mess for most weapons in general.
    • Crit damage bonuses from DHC's seems messed up and has been for a while.
    • Time to target is a big issue too, and torp users face this even worse. A beam hits instantly and does the damage instantly so they have a big advantage.
    SulMatuul.png
  • chastity1337chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,608 Arc User
    I agree with nearly all of your suggestions, Dave, however I do take exception with increasing the angle. Escorts need to remain front loaded, front pointing ships or else why even play them? The whole tradeoff in beams / cannons is about the concept that cannons pack the same or greater firepower comparative to a beam array in a much smaller package (thus enabling them to be mounted on much smaller vessels) but they're limited to a narrow cone field of fire. That shouldn't change.

    What I would do is increase the firepower of cannons and make them THE focused fire weapon of choice. I'd keep scatter volley the way it is or perhaps even nerf it slightly by comparison (say, for example, keeping the range penalty on CSV to reflect the idea that you're essentially turning an assault rifle into a shotgun temporarily, you gain damage and especially spread but lose range) but make rapid fire king of putting maximum hurt on a single target.

    Going farther with this, I'd extend the range of cannons to 12.5 kilometers when at full throttle (because approaching a target at such high speed reduces the time you have to put volleys on target) and extend the benefits of things like Pedal to the Metal and such that kick in at full throttle to also activate when you keep your target in your forward cone for an extended period because often it's one or the other when you're dealing with slower ships --you have to slow down to avoid overflying them. I'd grant a bonus to forward shields on escorts on the same basis, if you're going to slow down and keep your enemy in your crosshairs, some of that engine power you're not using can and should be pumped into your forward shields to help you survive while you play gunship and lay down the firepower.

    Finally, I'd allow escorts the ability to double up on forward shields at the cost of leaving the rear arc empty (or nearly so, leave a sliver of red back there to ward off stray torpedoes) and allow them all a version of the Afterburner ability from the pilot ships. I wouldn't go so far as making it an immunity granting maneuver like the pilot version, but instead cut weapons power and add a secondary shield layer while you accelerate away from danger.

    One more thing --I'd penalize beams and torpedoes inside 1km, granting some relief to escorts who are willing to brave hugging their target and plastering them at point blank range. I'd also restrict beam arrays on escorts just like cannons are restricted on the larger ships. If you want to make a beamscort, it's DBB or nothing because you have to make some form of tradeoff between the additional tac abilities and the power of BFAW.

    I think the combination of these ideas would go a long way towards making escorts a viable option again --more challenging to fly than a BFAW cruiser, but able to kick TRIBBLE if you fly them right.​​

    No, no, no, no! We do not need a return to the days of "Escorts Online"! Your suggestions are way, way too extreme.

  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    One Idea i had and have suggested quite afew times to make using cannons on the larger slower turning ships is a cruiser/carrier/dreadnought specific mode that they can enter into, and which would buff several of the aspects of cannons making them more viable an option at a small penalty to off-set the bonuses gained in this mode. Some of the bonuses i could see being part of a mode like this would be as fallows.
    1. Benefits/bonuses: I would make it that while a cruiser/carrier/Dreadnought is in this siege-type mode it would divert power from of their other systems, an use that power to activate additional cannon ports increasing the firing arc of the cannons slotted on the ship. I could also see this increasing either the range of the cannons/turrets as well as reducing the damage drop off of the cannons as well, or that it would buff the rate of fire an/or damage output of the slotted cannons/turrets. I could also see this buffing the shields of the ship while they are in this mode, either buffing the hp of your shields, granting bonus hardness, or even negating any bleed-thru from your equipped shield giving you better ability to take any sustain fire from other targets.
    2. Drawbacks/penalties:I would make it that because of the diverted power that the Siege-mode uses to power and improve cannons as well as shields that are slotted on these ships using the siege-mode, that it reduces things like Aux-based powers an also reduces the mobility of the ship by the reduction in power to the engine an auxiliary systems that is diverted to the shield an weapon systems of the ship.

    I wouldthink there might be more bonuses and penalities for this kind of thing, but not sure what else to put into it.I think that if you are going to want tp buff a weapon type to make it more useful on certain ships, than why not create something that actually buffs them on that ship specifically while also creating different playstyles for a different type of ship.
  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    asuran14 wrote: »
    One Idea i had and have suggested quite afew times to make using cannons on the larger slower turning ships is a cruiser/carrier/dreadnought specific mode that they can enter into, and which would buff several of the aspects of cannons making them more viable an option at a small penalty to off-set the bonuses gained in this mode. Some of the bonuses i could see being part of a mode like this would be as fallows.
    1. Benefits/bonuses: I would make it that while a cruiser/carrier/Dreadnought is in this siege-type mode it would divert power from of their other systems, an use that power to activate additional cannon ports increasing the firing arc of the cannons slotted on the ship. I could also see this increasing either the range of the cannons/turrets as well as reducing the damage drop off of the cannons as well, or that it would buff the rate of fire an/or damage output of the slotted cannons/turrets. I could also see this buffing the shields of the ship while they are in this mode, either buffing the hp of your shields, granting bonus hardness, or even negating any bleed-thru from your equipped shield giving you better ability to take any sustain fire from other targets.
    2. Drawbacks/penalties:I would make it that because of the diverted power that the Siege-mode uses to power and improve cannons as well as shields that are slotted on these ships using the siege-mode, that it reduces things like Aux-based powers an also reduces the mobility of the ship by the reduction in power to the engine an auxiliary systems that is diverted to the shield an weapon systems of the ship.

    I wouldthink there might be more bonuses and penalities for this kind of thing, but not sure what else to put into it.I think that if you are going to want tp buff a weapon type to make it more useful on certain ships, than why not create something that actually buffs them on that ship specifically while also creating different playstyles for a different type of ship.

    This sounds similar to the console ability of the Astika Battlecruiser.
    SulMatuul.png
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    lordsteve1 wrote: »
    asuran14 wrote: »
    One Idea i had and have suggested quite afew times to make using cannons on the larger slower turning ships is a cruiser/carrier/dreadnought specific mode that they can enter into, and which would buff several of the aspects of cannons making them more viable an option at a small penalty to off-set the bonuses gained in this mode. Some of the bonuses i could see being part of a mode like this would be as fallows.
    1. Benefits/bonuses: I would make it that while a cruiser/carrier/Dreadnought is in this siege-type mode it would divert power from of their other systems, an use that power to activate additional cannon ports increasing the firing arc of the cannons slotted on the ship. I could also see this increasing either the range of the cannons/turrets as well as reducing the damage drop off of the cannons as well, or that it would buff the rate of fire an/or damage output of the slotted cannons/turrets. I could also see this buffing the shields of the ship while they are in this mode, either buffing the hp of your shields, granting bonus hardness, or even negating any bleed-thru from your equipped shield giving you better ability to take any sustain fire from other targets.
    2. Drawbacks/penalties:I would make it that because of the diverted power that the Siege-mode uses to power and improve cannons as well as shields that are slotted on these ships using the siege-mode, that it reduces things like Aux-based powers an also reduces the mobility of the ship by the reduction in power to the engine an auxiliary systems that is diverted to the shield an weapon systems of the ship.

    I wouldthink there might be more bonuses and penalities for this kind of thing, but not sure what else to put into it.I think that if you are going to want tp buff a weapon type to make it more useful on certain ships, than why not create something that actually buffs them on that ship specifically while also creating different playstyles for a different type of ship.

    This sounds similar to the console ability of the Astika Battlecruiser.

    Similar yes very much developed an conceived from the idea, though also developed alongside how you would use something with such a narrow firing arc on a ship that is slower turning than might be optimal for such firing arcs. I could see the federation actually taking such an old style of idea and instituting it into their ships to increase the viability of cannons in a altered state.
  • welcome2earfwelcome2earf Member Posts: 1,748 Arc User
    Would the first step to achieving balance between beams and cannons not be the removal of the class restrictions?

    No, that does nothing to make DHCs and the current cannon boff powers more useful. If you want cannons to be more useful then we need buffs like:

    - Move CRF / CSV skills down one rank to match BFAW (Edit: this could be done without breaking things by changing the existing skills to +1 what they are now. So if you have CRF 2 slotted, it becomes CRF 3. CSV 3 becomes CSV 4.)
    - Add a CFAW skill for better AOE and point defense
    - Reduce the range penalty for DHCs
    - Increase the firing angle of DHCs to 90 degrees

    Any or all would help. Being able to equip 45-degree arc weapons on a slow turning cruiser will not.


    Travel time for the damage packet is also an issue for cannons.

    Instead of changing how cannon damage works I'd change beams to doing their damage over time while still initiating instantly. Cannons are basically a stored/charged blast so all their damage should be in one wallop. Beams are more continuous damage.

    Beams, for some reason, deal their damage both instantly and in one packet.

    Pretty much this is in my opinion, the LARGEST issue with Cannons - the time-to-target is sooo slow, your shots end up hitting an already neutralized target. It's absurd.
    T93uSC8.jpg
  • pcscipiopcscipio Member Posts: 79 Arc User
    Cannons are fine; also CRF and CSV are good at they current ranks as they are intended for heavy tactical ships with good turn. They could improve a tad bit the damage drop off. Just because most players follow like herds the new FOTM doesn't mean is anything wrong with cannons.
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    dareau wrote: »
    Hey, wait a minute...

    Cannons on Cruisers, aka "Battle Cruisers" are a "KDF thing"... Where's all the "whiny Feds trying to steal faction identity" posts?

    That was way back when cannons were still good in the meta. Now, cannons on anything is a newbie thing, so all we can expect is the "why would you want to use cannons when beams are bettter" -posts.

    Newbie doesn't do it justice IMO, but it certainly isn't mainstream build.
    I enjoy using Single Cannons, torpedoes and DHC and manage to squeeze enough performance out for advanced and elite content. It's not as easy to use as a BFAW, but a lot more rewarding and fun.

    I would actually place cannon builds in the expert category.

    Agreed 100% and salute. B)
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • This content has been removed.
  • horridpersonhorridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    As they are the classifications of cannon types are superfluous. I don't know if the meta has changed but since I first started playing the recurring mantra has been, "DHCs or go home". Given the superiority of beams across the board the "restriction" essentially punishes you for punishing yourself in the first place and is silly. Unless something changes radically in the world of cannons (either within the weapon class or the class as a whole balanced against beams; Why not look at projectiles compared to both while we are at it? ) who cares?

    I like the introduction of some consoles that promote synergized weapon pairings. Mono builds are boring but trump diversified compositions. Players should never be punished for trying any build under the sun but what if there were synergies introduced that encouraged canon stylings?
    battlegroupad_zps8gon3ojt.jpg

  • theillusivenmantheillusivenman Member Posts: 438 Arc User
    Yes to removing restriction (why not).
    No, don't think that would achieve more balanced usage between the weapons.
    5980291nyfcc.png
    "Reality is a thing of the past."
    Proud supporter of equality for all human beings.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    It could be done, but it wouldn't really do much. Even the Aux Cannon on the Vesta or Protonic Polaron Cannon builds on the Dyson Destroyers were kinda trap builds - you are better off using an actual escort with 4 or 5 weapon slots to use them. And plenty of (Battle)Cruisers already have DHC capability - but do they need it?

    I am opposed to increased firing arcs or lower range drop off. These limitations create a gameplay that seperates dual cannons from beams. You're free to upgrade Cannons and Turrets in that regard, but not Dual (Heavy) Cannons.

    Maybe all types of dual cannons should have an increased crit chance or crit severity or something similar to compensate. But it seems to me the real problem is that the BFAW buff is too good, at least with all the other tricks.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • This content has been removed.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    It could be done, but it wouldn't really do much. Even the Aux Cannon on the Vesta or Protonic Polaron Cannon builds on the Dyson Destroyers were kinda trap builds - you are better off using an actual escort with 4 or 5 weapon slots to use them. And plenty of (Battle)Cruisers already have DHC capability - but do they need it?

    I am opposed to increased firing arcs or lower range drop off. These limitations create a gameplay that seperates dual cannons from beams. You're free to upgrade Cannons and Turrets in that regard, but not Dual (Heavy) Cannons.

    Maybe all types of dual cannons should have an increased crit chance or crit severity or something similar to compensate. But it seems to me the real problem is that the BFAW buff is too good, at least with all the other tricks.

    Well maybe looking into giving dual cannons a version of the rapid mod might work, which would either be the standard proccing a rapid fire buff, or just having a constant increased rate of fire would work an fit that these are supposed to be faster firing than dual heavies. This would be nice as it would push both as being for different styles of playstyles. In the case of dual heavies being more of a burst type with the innately slower firing rate of higher damage per burst, as well as having an innate/native 10% critical severity buff. While dual cannons would be more built for proccing abilities like plasma burns, which could be done with a much higher rate of fire either from a constant buff to the rate of fire, or being able to procc a rapid fire buff, but it could also be done with a native chance buff that doubles/triples the chance to procc of abilities like plasma burn.

    Though i would also say we could use dual cannons having their firing arc increased to at least 75-90 degree from the 45 degree it currently is at, while keeping dual heavies at the 45 they are currently are at creating a fact that each can be used on different ships based on their turn rate. Single cannons right now are harder to buff as they are usable on all ship regardless of type, with a pretty good firing arc at 180 degrees, though i would ssay buffing the damage of the single cannons would be nice, while also increasing the projectile speed of all cannons would be a good way of making them more desirable than they currently are.
  • sennahcheribsennahcherib Member Posts: 2,823 Arc User
    personally, I don't care. the choice should be always available to the players. But (there is always a "but"), good luck with a cruiser with dhc, it is already difficult to use dhc's on a escort ship, + like mentioned in other posts the real problem is not which ship can use cannons, but the cannon skills. they should improved (without the need to buy a ship -thx-)

    csv and crf should have less cd and the cannons should fire more quickly. the time between shots fired and the time used by these shots to reach a target is too long.
Sign In or Register to comment.