Yeah, I'd have to agree with Lee and maybe go even further and make it where you get ONE 360 beam; not the 2 (or 3 if you count the Borg KCB) we do now. Especially with Cryptic making every cruiser have 5/3 layout lately.
Funnily enough, I've stuck 2 omni-beams on the front of my Jemmy carrier since it only has 2 rear guns. That way I have minimum of 4 beams coverage.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
No, this couldn't happen from an Engineering point of view as it is. You can't have more than 1 Omni on the same plane or it blocks the other and therefore it's not a true omni. But then again, it's bad enough that Cryptic choose to not implement the true weapon arcs that the ships should truely have!
So turrets can't exist either?
Turrets shouldn't be unlimited, yes. They can't be true 360 on the same plane as one would block the other.
That's gibberish. Ever heard of firing solution computers? A computer *can* have them fire in a 360 arc, without shooting each other, you know!? And even if a turret stream were, say, 10cm wide, you could mount all hardpoints at 10cm different heights, and have everything fire 'true 360' on the same plane, without even making calculations for cross-fire.
Speaking of hardpoints, THAT is actually the thing Cryptic should be working on: make it so that weapons aren't just firing from somewhere inside the ship, but from logical positions where one might expect weapon hardpoints IRL.
That's gibberish. Ever heard of firing solution computers? A computer *can* have them fire in a 360 arc, without shooting each other, you know!?
Silly Meimei. What you're proposing is still physically impossible. Just look at real battleship turrets. Even when the turrets are arranged in a superfiring arrangement so that the upper turrets can fire over the lower turrets so as to all be able to fire forwards, the turrets still can't all have 360 degree fields of fire because when turned the opposite way around, the lower turrets would then be blocked by the upper turrets, not to mention the ship's superstructure.
I can't see why turrets would suddenly start to block each other, when placed at different heights, 'when turned the opposite way.' Of course, the whole idea of only having 1 axis available to you, in a 3D space, is too ludicrous for words to begin with; but, like you say, it's just a game mechanic. The shows were, for the most part, laid out that way too (you know, like that Enterprise Episode, where Archer can only do Warp 5 or something, and is chased by a storm traveling at Warp 7, and he can't figure out that flying UP and OVER it might do the trick, LOL).
Sometimes the same physical hard point on the ship model simply fires more shots when more weapons of the same type are slotted - this is especially evident on the Negh'Var for instance. Slotting four DHCs does not increase the BFGs the ship has, the rate of fire simply improves. As said before, STO does not physically distinguish between those weapons, all of them are always present on the ship (some fed ships fire "cannon" pulses from the arrays/emitters), the weapons you slot in your equipment screen are simply configurations/settings you use (think datachips/blades as TNG shows). You don't physically swap out arrays and such.
Edit: Pleasedon'teatmypost
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Im all for dumping the omni limit, if someone wants to run omni let them, no skin off my nose what you all do with your ships. And PVP was dead in year one of this game, any adjustments made to the game after that cause of pvp is an utter joke. The weapon arcs in the game needed reworked for a while.
DHC/DC should be 90 degrees, torpedos should be 180, maybe then people would use them more often.
Actually I think DHCs should keep the 45 firing arc and DCs should be increased to 90 firing arc. Single cannons should have maybe 120 firing arc.
There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc.
This would make Dual Heavy Cannons obsolete.
Dual Heavy's and regular Dual Cannons parse just about exactly the same. Heavy Cannons do twice the damage, but regular dual cannons fire twice as fast.. a wash. If you gave Duals twice the firing arc, it would make DHC's sub par in comparison.
And both already have a 90' firing arc when Scatter Volley is active. If you can keep CSV at global (either Aux2Bat or doubling up) and slot 'Withering Barrage' from the T6 Defiant you pretty much have a 90' arc on all your cannons at all times.
The 120 on Single Cannons isn't a bad idea, at least then they can be used as 'broad side cannons.' I would actually also like to see single Cannons able to be mounted aft. Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons are in a really good place right now, neither of them need any buffs.
> @seaofsorrows said: > echatty wrote: » > > Actually I think DHCs should keep the 45 firing arc and DCs should be increased to 90 firing arc. Single cannons should have maybe 120 firing arc. > > There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc. > > > > > This would make Dual Heavy Cannons obsolete. > > Dual Heavy's and regular Dual Cannons parse just about exactly the same. Heavy Cannons do twice the damage, but regular dual cannons fire twice as fast.. a wash. If you gave Duals twice the firing arc, it would make DHC's sub par in comparison. > > And both already have a 90' firing arc when Scatter Volley is active. If you can keep CSV at global (either Aux2Bat or doubling up) and slot 'Withering Barrage' from the T6 Defiant you pretty much have a 90' arc on all your cannons at all times. > > The 120 on Single Cannons isn't a bad idea, at least then they can be used as 'broad side cannons.' I would actually also like to see single Cannons able to be mounted aft. Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons are in a really good place right now, neither of them need any buffs.
My personal opinion on DHCs is to make them the REALLY big cannons like the 16 inch guns off the Iowa big and restrict then to the biggest ships. Massive damage(in fact IMHO biggest single alpha in game short of torps) but longer reload. 180 degree arc.
DCs are the smaller faster auto cannons.
SCs increase the arc to say 200 and allow them to be mounted on the rear.
Now you can broadside cannons if that's your thing or beams.
More flavor to weapons builds
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Actually I think DHCs should keep the 45 firing arc and DCs should be increased to 90 firing arc. Single cannons should have maybe 120 firing arc.
There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc.
So you want single cannons to lose 60 degrees from their firing capability now? And then what? What would you offer in place of nerfing them even more? Last I checked, they already draw higher energy, have a slower firing rate, a placement restriction/numerical limit, with a much smaller firing arc than beam arrays.
As it is, other than filling out a theme with the lobi store single barrel cannon sets, what advantage really is there to fielding single barrel cannons? A CSV activation?
Actually I think DHCs should keep the 45 firing arc and DCs should be increased to 90 firing arc. Single cannons should have maybe 120 firing arc.
There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc.
So you want single cannons to lose 60 degrees from their firing capability now? And then what? What would you offer in place of nerfing them even more? Last I checked, they already draw higher energy, have a slower firing rate, a placement restriction/numerical limit, with a much smaller firing arc than beam arrays.
As it is, other than filling out a theme with the lobi store single barrel cannon sets, what advantage really is there to fielding single barrel cannons? A CSV activation?
Good eye, I didn't even catch that.
Single Cannons already have a 180' arc, that's more then generous. My 'fix' for single cannons is that I think they should be aft mountable so that people can create broad side cannon builds. It wouldn't be the greatest damage ever, but with scatter volley it could easily rival FAW builds. At least singles would have a place.
I would reduce the damage of dual cannons abit to give them a increased firing arc, though not a full on double of the arc but maybe more like 65-75 degrees. Though not sure how well it would do with the innate crit severity that dual heavies have, but increasing the firing arc of dual cannons to 65 to75 degrees would make them more of a viable choice to use on alot more ships that can slot dual cannon.
Can definitely agree that if you are going to want to have single cannons usable on the rear, and for broad siding, than you need a firing arc that is larger than 180 degrees so that you have some overlap. Even if you make it something like 200-220 degrees that would give you a overlap that is less than the overlap of the 250 degree arc of arrays an make broadsiding just that bit more interesting to do than broadsiding with arrays.
The summer event ship has 5 rear weapon slots. For a cannons build you could put 5 turrets in back, but for beams we are hobbled by the (1 crafted) + (1 episode) restriction. Why not finally remove this ancient rule?
Con: BFAW works better than CSV and CRF so it's power creep
Pro:
- Let people play the way they want to
- The omni beams are much harder to get than turrets, so we earn those extras. Crafting XII Omnis is much more expensive in mats than mark II turrets, lock box omnis are much much rarer than turrets. Episode rewards are the same, but both have the "1 per ship" limit so the other 4 omnis must be crafted or lock box.
- We also have to spend a lot more dil to upgrade to epic since they can't be crafted at mark II.
CRF / CSV could be buffed a bit if that's really the only good argument against it.
The damage really isn't one of the main problems with CRF/CSV. The main argument there is:
Ensign = BF@W I
Lieutenant = BF@W II
Lt Commander = BF@W III
and
Lieutenant = CSV/CRF I
Lt Commmander = CSV/CRF II
Commander = CSV/CRF III
And they did just buff CSV's accuracy not long ago.
But, overall, that's the main argument about CSV/CRF.
The summer event ship has 5 rear weapon slots. For a cannons build you could put 5 turrets in back, but for beams we are hobbled by the (1 crafted) + (1 episode) restriction. Why not finally remove this ancient rule?
Con: BFAW works better than CSV and CRF so it's power creep
Pro:
- Let people play the way they want to
- The omni beams are much harder to get than turrets, so we earn those extras. Crafting XII Omnis is much more expensive in mats than mark II turrets, lock box omnis are much much rarer than turrets. Episode rewards are the same, but both have the "1 per ship" limit so the other 4 omnis must be crafted or lock box.
- We also have to spend a lot more dil to upgrade to epic since they can't be crafted at mark II.
CRF / CSV could be buffed a bit if that's really the only good argument against it.
The damage really isn't one of the main problems with CRF/CSV. The main argument there is:
Ensign = BF@W I
Lieutenant = BF@W II
Lt Commander = BF@W III
and
Lieutenant = CSV/CRF I
Lt Commmander = CSV/CRF II
Commander = CSV/CRF III
And they did just buff CSV's accuracy not long ago.
But, overall, that's the main argument about CSV/CRF.
Good point, they should lower the CRF/CSV ranks by 1.
BFAW will still have the advantage that it targets in a 360 degree arc, which is more useful for point defense and against pets.
That so-called 'garbage ' warp core is a hurried travellers dream at UR. If you are doing Tour the Galaxy, you will want that as your core.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Speaking of hardpoints, THAT is actually the thing Cryptic should be working on: make it so that weapons aren't just firing from somewhere inside the ship, but from logical positions where one might expect weapon hardpoints IRL.
you mean like from the nacelles that everyone whines about on the Oddys??
Comments
Funnily enough, I've stuck 2 omni-beams on the front of my Jemmy carrier since it only has 2 rear guns. That way I have minimum of 4 beams coverage.
That's gibberish. Ever heard of firing solution computers? A computer *can* have them fire in a 360 arc, without shooting each other, you know!? And even if a turret stream were, say, 10cm wide, you could mount all hardpoints at 10cm different heights, and have everything fire 'true 360' on the same plane, without even making calculations for cross-fire.
I can't see why turrets would suddenly start to block each other, when placed at different heights, 'when turned the opposite way.' Of course, the whole idea of only having 1 axis available to you, in a 3D space, is too ludicrous for words to begin with; but, like you say, it's just a game mechanic. The shows were, for the most part, laid out that way too (you know, like that Enterprise Episode, where Archer can only do Warp 5 or something, and is chased by a storm traveling at Warp 7, and he can't figure out that flying UP and OVER it might do the trick, LOL).
Edit: Pleasedon'teatmypost
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
DHC/DC should be 90 degrees, torpedos should be 180, maybe then people would use them more often.
There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc.
This would make Dual Heavy Cannons obsolete.
Dual Heavy's and regular Dual Cannons parse just about exactly the same. Heavy Cannons do twice the damage, but regular dual cannons fire twice as fast.. a wash. If you gave Duals twice the firing arc, it would make DHC's sub par in comparison.
And both already have a 90' firing arc when Scatter Volley is active. If you can keep CSV at global (either Aux2Bat or doubling up) and slot 'Withering Barrage' from the T6 Defiant you pretty much have a 90' arc on all your cannons at all times.
The 120 on Single Cannons isn't a bad idea, at least then they can be used as 'broad side cannons.' I would actually also like to see single Cannons able to be mounted aft. Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons are in a really good place right now, neither of them need any buffs.
> echatty wrote: »
>
> Actually I think DHCs should keep the 45 firing arc and DCs should be increased to 90 firing arc. Single cannons should have maybe 120 firing arc.
>
> There is a wide angle torpedo in the game with that firing arc.
>
>
>
>
> This would make Dual Heavy Cannons obsolete.
>
> Dual Heavy's and regular Dual Cannons parse just about exactly the same. Heavy Cannons do twice the damage, but regular dual cannons fire twice as fast.. a wash. If you gave Duals twice the firing arc, it would make DHC's sub par in comparison.
>
> And both already have a 90' firing arc when Scatter Volley is active. If you can keep CSV at global (either Aux2Bat or doubling up) and slot 'Withering Barrage' from the T6 Defiant you pretty much have a 90' arc on all your cannons at all times.
>
> The 120 on Single Cannons isn't a bad idea, at least then they can be used as 'broad side cannons.' I would actually also like to see single Cannons able to be mounted aft. Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons are in a really good place right now, neither of them need any buffs.
My personal opinion on DHCs is to make them the REALLY big cannons like the 16 inch guns off the Iowa big and restrict then to the biggest ships. Massive damage(in fact IMHO biggest single alpha in game short of torps) but longer reload. 180 degree arc.
DCs are the smaller faster auto cannons.
SCs increase the arc to say 200 and allow them to be mounted on the rear.
Now you can broadside cannons if that's your thing or beams.
More flavor to weapons builds
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
So you want single cannons to lose 60 degrees from their firing capability now? And then what? What would you offer in place of nerfing them even more? Last I checked, they already draw higher energy, have a slower firing rate, a placement restriction/numerical limit, with a much smaller firing arc than beam arrays.
As it is, other than filling out a theme with the lobi store single barrel cannon sets, what advantage really is there to fielding single barrel cannons? A CSV activation?
Good eye, I didn't even catch that.
Single Cannons already have a 180' arc, that's more then generous. My 'fix' for single cannons is that I think they should be aft mountable so that people can create broad side cannon builds. It wouldn't be the greatest damage ever, but with scatter volley it could easily rival FAW builds. At least singles would have a place.
Can definitely agree that if you are going to want to have single cannons usable on the rear, and for broad siding, than you need a firing arc that is larger than 180 degrees so that you have some overlap. Even if you make it something like 200-220 degrees that would give you a overlap that is less than the overlap of the 250 degree arc of arrays an make broadsiding just that bit more interesting to do than broadsiding with arrays.
The damage really isn't one of the main problems with CRF/CSV. The main argument there is:
Ensign = BF@W I
Lieutenant = BF@W II
Lt Commander = BF@W III
and
Lieutenant = CSV/CRF I
Lt Commmander = CSV/CRF II
Commander = CSV/CRF III
And they did just buff CSV's accuracy not long ago.
But, overall, that's the main argument about CSV/CRF.
Good point, they should lower the CRF/CSV ranks by 1.
BFAW will still have the advantage that it targets in a 360 degree arc, which is more useful for point defense and against pets.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
you mean like from the nacelles that everyone whines about on the Oddys??