Wide Angle Dual Heavy Beam Bank

jslyn

I picked up the new Rep Weapon. I leveled it to MK XV Gold. According to the tool tip while in space, it does 912.4 DPS. I have a Beam Array with comparable mods and it does 974.1 DPS.

I figure that I have to be missing something. What makes it worth using a Dual Beam Bank that is weaker than a Beam Array?

rattler2

Besides set bonus, you probably had to trade a mod for the wide angle "mod". Its kinda like how the older hybrid weapons performance isn't as good as stock and later lockbox weapons. Because you have to trade a potential Dmg or other useful mod for the special mod.

Without knowing exactly what mods the Rep weapon has at gold, and what mods are on the weapons you're comparing to... right now its just speculation.

jslyn

If you are curious, the mods are:

Beam Bank:
[Ac/Dm] [CrtH]x3 [Dmg]

Beam Array:
[Ac/Dm] [CrtD]x2 [CrtH] [Dmg]

rattler2

Hm... So it doesn't lose a mod for the wide arc...
You do have 2 CrtD mods on the beam array though...

Ok I'm honestly not really sure atm.

jslyn

I do have the CrtD on the array, but these are the numbers sitting in orbit, not in battle.

Keep in mind that normal Dual Beam Banks are about 25% more powerful than Arrays. This thing is weaker than an Array. I cannot see any reason why it should be used. If nothing else, this will serve as a warning to the rest of you guys who were considering spending the resources to level it up.

rattler2

Unless you can reroll the mods. They did make some of the Reg gear work with Re-engineering if I remember correctly.

Only other thing I can think of is that it did lose some power because of the arc, but the fact you're hitting things sooner with it due to the arc makes up the difference a bit?

jslyn

You are losing more than a bit of power. My regular Dual Bank does 1368.5 DPS compared to the Heavy's 912.4. The Heavy drains more power per shot too, but that is expected of a Heavy.


As for the other, give me a second, let me look here....
..
..
..

Yes, you can Re-Engineer the Heavy.

odinforever20000

So On my Sci toon(Sci ship too)
Method

64 Weapon power.
Bajoran 3 piece and Qphase 3 piece.
Mouse over the weapons Bar

UR Phaser Wide Angle Dual Heavy Beam Bank Mk XV [CrtD]x3 [Dmg] - 1331 Phaser Damage (709 dps)
UR Terran Task Force Phaser Beam Array Mk XV [CrtD]x2 [Dmg] [Proc] - 1038 Phaser Damage (No DPS listed)
UR Phaser Beam Array Mk XV [CrtD]x3 [Pen] - 998.5 Phaser Damage (798 Ddps)

VR Phased Biomatter Beam Array Mk XV [CrtD]x3] - 994 Phaser Damage (795 Dps)
VR Quantum Phase Beam Array Mk XV [CrtD] [CrtH] [Proc] - 989 Phaser Damage (791 dps)

Thats what im looking at..

jslyn

@odinforever20000 That is what I am getting. This looks to be set on the backend as an Array and not a Dual Bank.

odinforever20000

jslyn wrote: »

@odinforever20000 That is what I am getting. This looks to be set on the backend as an Array and not a Dual Bank.

Could be a tool tip error..Got a parser?

odinforever20000

Eh..I do..pulled my last ISA run and Todays Defense of Stargase 1..

Yea..The Phaser Wide Angle Dual Heavy Beam Bank did more DPS than my Terran Array or that Qphase array I had on board..

Starbase 1
Average damage (this is different from DPS) came out to
1650 Phaser damage for the Wide angle Heavy Beam
1486 Phaser damage for the Qphase Array
2072 Phaser damage for the Tarran..But We know its damage isnt static as the opponent gets weaker it gets stronger..

ISA. (110k dps run)
Average Damage
3781 Phaser damage for the Wide angle Heavy Beam
3077 Phaser damage for the Qphase Array
6608 Phaser damage for the Tarran

lianthelia

Something sounds busted....completely worthless weapon if it does less damage than a BA...maybe should send in a report?

phoenixc

It looks like the weapon is working right but there is something the tooltip is not getting right.

tousseau

I seem to recall Bort chiming in on Reddit, saying that the item is bugged...

EDIT:
Here it is...
https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/bshkjf/bug_why_are_the_disco_reputation_wide_angle_dual/eonw7oc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

jslyn

Ah, well, there we go then. The issue has been officially addressed.