test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Can we please make normal torpedo firings track less?!?!?!

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2010 in PvP Gameplay
Right now they are much too much of a fire and forget weapon. Yes we have the 90 deg firing window, but there seems to be no mechanic to make poor firings for targets with high angular velocity through that 90 degree window.

If they cant be made to miss visually, can we at least drastically deminish the damage done to targets...including no damae at all?

These torpedos are pulling Gs in their tracking way beyond anything ever shown in Trek...even the tracking torpedo against Gen. Chang had to travel at reduced velocity to make such tight arcs...and it was trackoing a stationary target.


Every other standard torpedo firing as a wide, soft arcs with minimal tracking at standard(high) velocities.

Please give us a miss/lock lose animation for these torps, so misses can happen. Make firing torpedos more of a simple snap-shot, fire and forget, raining death for dummies weapon. Make smart use of the weapon key.

If you cant make it visual, at least keep the Hail Mary shots from being an effective tactic...even if you do give them the gratification of seeing it actually splash on target.

U-turning torpedos is not Trek...its ust lazy and poor mechaincs.

Devs, you guys said Escorts/BoPs would be hard to hit...its in the description of the class types....their speed and maneuvering were suppoed to be assets. How is this major survivability/defensive attribute being applied in game if Energy weapons are point a click(understandably) and torpedoes track like gnats?!?!?

Torpedos that track less and actually miss are a key ingredient in making the statements about light vessels actually mean something...as of now, they are just lip service.



EDIT
Keep in mind, when I speak of torpedo tracking, Im not speaking of a target lock, but instead the path or flight track of the torpedo. I dont question th eability of a torpedo tohold a target loock(within reason), but the ability of the torpedoes to pull extreme, non-canon, maneuvers to gaurantee the impact.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I support this. Regular (non gorn) tracking needs to go way down
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    U-turning torpedos is not Trek...its ust lazy and poor mechaincs.

    Wonder how that would affect exploration cruisers using the Envoy hull, since (graphically) it only has torpedo launchers forward and therefore the torps have to pull a 180 to hit aft targets... :P

    Not sure how this could be balanced, seeing as high-tier cruisers just don't have the turn rate to overcome potential high-agility ships just staying at close range. A BoP could just orbit a cruiser at high speed and the cruiser would never land a torp shot with a system like this. Of course, this could potentially be countered with certain abilities like tractor beam, but then they're forcing more cookie-cutter builds in PVP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Wonder how that would affect exploration cruisers using the Envoy hull, since (graphically) it only has torpedo launchers forward and therefore the torps have to pull a 180 to hit aft targets... :P

    Not sure how this could be balanced, seeing as high-tier cruisers just don't have the turn rate to overcome potential high-agility ships just staying at close range. A BoP could just orbit a cruiser at high speed and the cruiser would never land a torp shot with a system like this. Of course, this could potentially be countered with certain abilities like tractor beam, but then they're forcing more cookie-cutter builds in PVP.

    Torps should be situational, definitely.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    They already are to an extent, due to them doing diminished damage to shields as well as the limited firing arc. Adding tracking speed would unbalance torps in favor of more agile ships, making it all but impossible for more sluggish ships to overcome angular velocity for a good firing solution. I don't think escorts need even more of a dps advantage.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    okay...

    create tactical console - torpedo guidenance mk ... ( +75% Accuracy for torps, only for cruisers) so they have a chance to hit a target like a BOP even if they have the BOP in front or behind only ONE time in the fight, so they have a 3/4 chance to hit him, anotherwise - NO CHANCE
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    So now cruisers only get to use 1 torp effectively? Don't think so. Even with shields down it can take upwards of 2 or 3 torps to kill a target, not to mention the fact it's fairly common for a ship to change shield facing before a torp lands. Also, there's the coding issue of how to apply the accuracy bonus. The first torp fired might be at range, before angular velocity becomes an issue, thus making such a console completely worthless because its bonus was wasted. And it still forces cookie-cutter, since every cruiser would virtually be required to equip that console to use torps (and I'm pretty sure nobody would), or be forced to use mines. A general accuracy console (not 1 time use per combat!) might be worth consideration if tracking was implemented, but I really can't see cruiser pilots liking the loss of their +weapon consoles just so they can use torps effectively.

    I can see where the OP is coming from, with torps pulling turns that don't match canon, although I have a feeling he's upset because he's the one being hit by said torps. But you can only follow canon so far; making the game playable and fun has to take precedence in situations like this. I'd actually argue that a firing arc on torps to begin with isn't canon, as they have obviously been programed in the past with a built-in guidance system (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Torpedo, pay attention to the part about sensor packages, http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_VI:_The_Undiscovered_Country, the OP's original post about the torp that struck Chang's ship, pay attention to the part about the torp modification); acquire a lock and fire, the torp will take care of the rest. The 90 degree firing arc and shield resistance were implemented so that torps would be situational weapons.

    Torps can and will miss their target, and I too wish I could see the torp fly past the target rather than apparently explode right on top and do no damage. If the issue is about torps pulling turns they shouldn't be able to, then I'd rather see the graphics changed to show a torp slowing to pull a hard turn and maybe have the torp arrive a little later than normal.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    So cruisers wouldnt be firing torps at escorts as much...big whoop! Thats why cruisers have all those beams. Instead, use your torps on other cruisers and larger targets...duh!

    Lastly, angular velocity deminishes as the range between the two objects is increased...so you'd still be able to hit fast movers at range. you'd still be able to saddle up behind an unsuspecting escort and hit him with a salvo...you still have a 90 deg firing arc to work with it.

    Honestly, is the tractor beam really all that bad of an option to mount?

    Cruisers at weapons platforms are intended and designed to be most effective against other cruisers...its no wonder the use of torps would be decreased against fast movers...thats what your fast movers/escorts are there for...to ESCORT the heavies...to intercept our fast movers before they can swarm the Cruisers.

    If you are worried about not giving your arc to bear...burn an aux battery, use Evasive maneuvers, use the tractor beam...come on guys, really?


    EDIT

    I accept that torps have guidance and tracking ability...but its also been demonstrated to be of limited effectivemess...esoeicaly with respect to trackinga nd the maneuver sit can pull to impact.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    So cruisers wouldnt be firing torps at escorts as much...big whoop! Thats why cruisers have all those beams. Instead, use your torps on other cruisers and larger targets...duh!

    I'm guessing cruisers don't reliably get shots off at escorts very often to begin with. Making their few shots worthless isn't going to be a good balance. Beam arrays and turrets are already the weakest weapon system in the game, but that's all cruisers get to work with. You can't slot more than 6 energy weapons before you start seeing your overall damage actually start to drop, so most cruisers still have to equip a projectile, and most prefer torpedoes.
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Lastly, angular velocity deminishes as the range between the two objects is increased...so you'd still be able to hit fast movers at range. you'd still be able to saddle up behind an unsuspecting escort and hit him with a salvo...you still have a 90 deg firing arc to work with it.

    And how many battles do you participate in that stay outside of 3 - 4km, if not closer? Cruisers don't generally have the option of keeping distance from escorts, so that argument isn't worth anything.
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Honestly, is the tractor beam really all that bad of an option to mount?

    This would also have ramifications in PVE, although somewhat less so. My PVE cruiser build is a tank/healer, and I can't spare the slot for a tractor beam. So, yes, forcing me to equip a tractor beam just so I can reliably use torpedoes is a bad option. Anything that forces you to use certain abilities is something that should be reconsidered.
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Cruisers at weapons platforms are intended and designed to be most effective against other cruisers...its no wonder the use of torps would be decreased against fast movers...thats what your fast movers/escorts are there for...to ESCORT the heavies...to intercept our fast movers before they can swarm the Cruisers.

    I seem to recall a certain cruiser from the Dominion Wars that was heavily armed with torpedoes. The Nebula class was temporarily assigned the post of a torpedo boat, so cruisers with torps is hardly unheard of. Also, the idea of using escorts to intercept other escorts would imply combat on a much larger scale at much longer range. Considering canon Star Trek battles could take place across hundreds of thousands of kilometers, it would work there. But in STO we've got 10km to work with, and we all know what happens to an unsupported escort who tries to do interception duties.
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    If you are worried about not giving your arc to bear...burn an aux battery, use Evasive maneuvers, use the tractor beam...come on guys, really?

    Torpedo cooldown (most commonly used types): 6 - 8 seconds
    Aux battery cooldown - 5 minutes
    Evasive maneuvers cooldown - 1 minute
    Tractor Beam cooldown - 45 seconds

    I'm seeing a problem here. Effectively, at close range I can only use a torpedo maybe once every 30 seconds under ideal conditions and having all these things available? I've already stated my opinion on forcing tractor beam. And have you even used an Exploration cruiser? Evasive maneuvers alone still isn't enough to keep up with a close-orbiting escort.
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    I accept that torps have guidance and tracking ability...but its also been demonstrated to be of limited effectivemess...esoeicaly with respect to trackinga nd the maneuver sit can pull to impact.

    Again, while this is true for canon, space battles in STO are extremely far removed from canon. If I could start launching torpedoes at 100,000km like they can in actual Trek, I wouldn't have so much of an issue expecting them to function more as long range weapons due to limited tracking. If I could have the actual armaments of larger cruisers to compensate for torps limited effectiveness (11 arrays on a Galaxy, 16 on a Sovereign according to memory alpha), then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But we've only got 10km. We've only got a half-dozen energy weapons. Adjustments have to be made for the game to be playable.

    Edit: one last fact that I've been neglecting this entire time: your speed has an effect on how easy you are to hit. Escorts already have the obvious advantage here. If you're flying around a cruiser at full speed and cross into his torp arc, he's still got a reduced chance to hit you because you're going fast.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I'm guessing cruisers don't reliably get shots off at escorts very often to begin with. Making their few shots worthless isn't going to be a good balance. Beam arrays and turrets are already the weakest weapon system in the game, but that's all cruisers get to work with. You can't slot more than 6 energy weapons before you start seeing your overall damage actually start to drop, so most cruisers still have to equip a projectile, and most prefer torpedoes.
    There is nothing stoppinga Cruiser form slotting a torpedo...they should. It still has its place for Cruisers. If necessary, they can provide a damage multiplier for beams to all Cruisers to make up for it.


    And how many battles do you participate in that stay outside of 3 - 4km, if not closer? Cruisers don't generally have the option of keeping distance from escorts, so that argument isn't worth anything.
    All battles start from outside 10km...they might end up being much closer...but thats the nature of the beast. Get your torpedo strikes in early...they still contribute to burst damage against shields...once the shields drop, hammer the hull with beams and torpedos(when you can). unfortunatly the current team death matches make escorts too much of a liability...but for open PvP warfare, it wont be so much of an issue.


    This would also have ramifications in PVE, although somewhat less so. My PVE cruiser build is a tank/healer, and I can't spare the slot for a tractor beam. So, yes, forcing me to equip a tractor beam just so I can reliably use torpedoes is a bad option. Anything that forces you to use certain abilities is something that should be reconsidered.You arent be forced to use a tractor...but you are being asked to utilize the ship within certain criteria...Im not forced to use Jam Sensors to increase my survivability, Im not being forced to use HYT to be offensivly viable, nor am I forced to shield tank so my frail ship can withstand a beating...these are choices we make.



    I seem to recall a certain cruiser from the Dominion Wars that was heavily armed with torpedoes. The Nebula class was temporarily assigned the post of a torpedo boat, so cruisers with torps is hardly unheard of. Also, the idea of using escorts to intercept other escorts would imply combat on a much larger scale at much longer range. Considering canon Star Trek battles could take place across hundreds of thousands of kilometers, it would work there. But in STO we've got 10km to work with, and we all know what happens to an unsupported escort who tries to do interception duties.SO it was specially modofied for a specific role...Im not saying Cruisers cant be torpedo boats, nor that they cant be specialized to combat lighter craft...but it also took special psoitioning and planning to make that specialized hull useful...as it should. If you want to beat back fast movers, then position and plan for it...but torpedos flying a round like gnats shouldnt be an option. Still, in general it remains true...Cruisers are intended to combat other cruisers as a total weapons platform...the inability to utilize torpedos as much as you would like against fast movers is totally expected...Im not saying Cruiser dont and cant engage fast movers, of course they can, but they arent intended to be able to compete with fast movers with respect to maneuver dependent tactics.



    Torpedo cooldown (most commonly used types): 6 - 8 seconds
    Aux battery cooldown - 5 minutes
    Evasive maneuvers cooldown - 1 minute
    Tractor Beam cooldown - 45 seconds

    I'm seeing a problem here. Effectively, at close range I can only use a torpedo maybe once every 30 seconds under ideal conditions and having all these things available? I've already stated my opinion on forcing tractor beam. And have you even used an Exploration cruiser? Evasive maneuvers alone still isn't enough to keep up with a close-orbiting escort.Because it was never meant to be...just like Escort arent tanks...fight your ship's fight not yours



    Again, while this is true for canon, space battles in STO are extremely far removed from canon. If I could start launching torpedoes at 100,000km like they can in actual Trek, I wouldn't have so much of an issue expecting them to function more as long range weapons due to limited tracking. If I could have the actual armaments of larger cruisers to compensate for torps limited effectiveness (11 arrays on a Galaxy, 16 on a Sovereign according to memory alpha), then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But we've only got 10km. We've only got a half-dozen energy weapons. Adjustments have to be made for the game to be playable.

    Edit: one last fact that I've been neglecting this entire time: your speed has an effect on how easy you are to hit. Escorts already have the obvious advantage here. If you're flying around a cruiser at full speed and cross into his torp arc, he's still got a reduced chance to hit you because you're going fast.

    The ranges are not all that relevant, its the elapsed time that counts...if they scale speeds and ranges properly there wopnt be much lost for canon. the actual weapons lsots mean nothing...think about it, how much has your beam weapon damage output scaled up since your Miranda? The slots mean nothing, just the total damage output across the ships firing arcs matters....the adjustmets have been made, but only scaled within reason. Torps dont need to track as much to make up for anything lost in translation. In fact, the rapid rate of fire is likly the greatest factor in torps not being as hard itting as they could/should be....I say increase the cooldown time for all torps by 100, 200 or even 500% and then increase their damage output accordingly(ok maybe not 500% for damage).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    If they made torps track less 'for thematic reasons' or whatever, they'd have to buff them to the 'blowing through the enterprise's saucer section' that they thematically did too, since their DPS is already easily outmatched by cannons/dual beams run at high power settings. On my sci ship, my dual beams have double the DPS my torp bay does, and they fire far faster and no wait time either.

    And in a world of SubNuc/VM, do you REALLY want to see torps buffed to that level? Because that's all it would really do, make it so the only people who would bother with them are the ones slapping holds on their targets so they don't move already. So they'd never be used as intended, but OP when used as they would be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anxiety wrote:
    If they made torps track less 'for thematic reasons' or whatever, they'd have to buff them to the 'blowing through the enterprise's saucer section' that they thematically did too, since their DPS is already easily outmatched by cannons/dual beams run at high power settings. On my sci ship, my dual beams have double the DPS my torp bay does, and they fire far faster and no wait time either.

    And in a world of SubNuc/VM, do you REALLY want to see torps buffed to that level? Because that's all it would really do, make it so the only people who would bother with them are the ones slapping holds on their targets so they don't move already. So they'd never be used as intended, but OP when used as they would be.

    Im not so sure it be all that drastic if the had reduced maneuvering...even consistent with canon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Im not so sure it be all that drastic if the had reduced maneuvering...even consistent with canon.

    Um, you're wanting torps to hit less? That's a balance issue. And yes, it would be canon. But, as I said, they'd then have to boost torp damage to the 'one volley blows up a ship' you see in the canon as well to compensate.


    And I really don't want to see VM --> instakill torp barrage before people are able to hit sci team and react.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Cocoa-Jin, may I suggest you consider ways to counter getting clobbered by torpedoes rather than complain about torpedo tracking? As an escort captain, I can't say that torpedo tracking even registers on my list of things that need to be looked at.

    I recommend you get yourself a set of Covariant [Cap]x2 shields and pay attention to never letting a fallen shield quad become exposed to the enemy. It's actually really REALLY easy to do in an escort.

    Worst case scenario, funnel power to engines (take your favorite method: wait it out, EPtoE, or Engine Battery), and hit Evasive Maneuvers. As an escort pilot, you'll fly faster than a quantum torpedo (the fastest torpedo in game).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    So cruisers wouldnt be firing torps at escorts as much...big whoop! Thats why cruisers have all those beams. Instead, use your torps on other cruisers and larger targets...duh!

    Lastly, angular velocity deminishes as the range between the two objects is increased...so you'd still be able to hit fast movers at range. you'd still be able to saddle up behind an unsuspecting escort and hit him with a salvo...you still have a 90 deg firing arc to work with it.

    Honestly, is the tractor beam really all that bad of an option to mount?

    Cruisers at weapons platforms are intended and designed to be most effective against other cruisers...its no wonder the use of torps would be decreased against fast movers...thats what your fast movers/escorts are there for...to ESCORT the heavies...to intercept our fast movers before they can swarm the Cruisers.

    If you are worried about not giving your arc to bear...burn an aux battery, use Evasive maneuvers, use the tractor beam...come on guys, really?


    EDIT

    I accept that torps have guidance and tracking ability...but its also been demonstrated to be of limited effectivemess...esoeicaly with respect to trackinga nd the maneuver sit can pull to impact.

    if this change went in

    Cruisers would not ever mount a single torpedo..

    they would be 100% Beam loadouts.. which for your escort, makes you die most likely... that lil bit quicker

    but, if torpedo's cant pull those g's.... your escort shouldnt be allowed to pull them either
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    GunDaHar wrote: »
    if this change went in

    Cruisers would not ever mount a single torpedo..

    they would be 100% Beam loadouts.. which for your escort, makes you die most likely... that lil bit quicker

    but, if torpedo's cant pull those g's.... your escort shouldnt be allowed to pull them either

    Its not about the ability of the torp to hold up to the Gs...its a matter of cannon never demonstrated the torps ability to exert that much maneuvering force. Their tracking at normal velocities only allowed for soft arcs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Irontygre wrote: »
    Cocoa-Jin, may I suggest you consider ways to counter getting clobbered by torpedoes rather than complain about torpedo tracking? As an escort captain, I can't say that torpedo tracking even registers on my list of things that need to be looked at.

    I recommend you get yourself a set of Covariant [Cap]x2 shields and pay attention to never letting a fallen shield quad become exposed to the enemy. It's actually really REALLY easy to do in an escort.

    Worst case scenario, funnel power to engines (take your favorite method: wait it out, EPtoE, or Engine Battery), and hit Evasive Maneuvers. As an escort pilot, you'll fly faster than a quantum torpedo (the fastest torpedo in game).

    Naw, its not a problem for me at all...I frankly hate that they can track us while cloaked...but thats another issue.

    Im not content with seeing them do this in PvE or PvP...Im actually complainig because it benefits me too much...especially in PvE against the swarms of fighters/shuttles. I rarely make snap shots in PvP...and I have no idea to what extent its being used against me....but then again, I barely ever die in PvP anyway. My biggest problem is the cloak tracking torps, the delivery of torp damage way in advance of thier impact and the latencey/lag issue that sneaks a few torps in.

    None the less...even if it allows for a hit 1 out of 100 times...thats one too many.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Its not about the ability of the torp to hold up to the Gs...its a matter of cannon never demonstrated the torps ability to exert that much maneuvering force. Their tracking at normal velocities only allowed for soft arcs.

    And as said, trying to base pvp balance around what is 'canon' would be a nightmare. Either you decide to flush pvp down the toilet because it breaks your immersion, or you live with a few creative liberties.

    That's all there is to it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anxiety wrote:
    And as said, trying to base pvp balance around what is 'canon' would be a nightmare. Either you decide to flush pvp down the toilet because it breaks your immersion, or you live with a few creative liberties.

    That's all there is to it.

    Its not all or nothing...its all un-canon or all canon. Im saying this can be more canon and still work.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    odd that naval battles of days past used to be barrages from the sides...
    now we can only shoot from fore and aft. and are then dependant on angle of fire and if target falls withing the range for said weapon. beam or torp or other.
    ill let you scale down the torps if i can mount weapons on my port and starboard sides then.... :)
    but thats not cannon...just wishfull thinking.
    besides - i think they need to fix the fact a frieghter can out turn a cruiser before they address this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Its not all or nothing...its all un-canon or all canon. Im saying this can be more canon and still work.

    Yet you've failed to say in any respect how it would 'work'.

    I'm not arguing whether it's better off canon-wise, I'm saying it's a terrible idea from a gameplay standpoint. And if you are really that big on 'it's ruining my immersion' how in the world did you get past all the federation quests where they've basically turned into the butchers of the galaxy? I could open a chain of shoe stores with all the Gorn I've killed. Gorn-skin boots.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anxiety wrote:
    Yet you've failed to say in any respect how it would 'work'.

    I'm not arguing whether it's better off canon-wise, I'm saying it's a terrible idea from a gameplay standpoint. And if you are really that big on 'it's ruining my immersion' how in the world did you get past all the federation quests where they've basically turned into the butchers of the galaxy?I went Klingon at level 4 I could open a chain of shoe stores with all the Gorn I've killed. Gorn-skin boots.

    It can be done through the appropriate balances. Any combination of the following: Give Cruisers a bonus to energy weapons. Give escorts longer torp cooldowns. Give cruisers a decreased or no global torp cool down(based on the number of tubes mounted), give cruisers HYT I as ship innate, give cruisers an increased kinetic resist for hull, etc, etc.

    It doesnt take much to come up with ideas, then work them in. The idea is to make torps count more with Cruisers when they do get a succesful hit.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Increasing burst damage are not solutions. Reasons have already been discussed. NONE of your solutions address that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Try again. Rear Admiral Trill, every single episode and story quest completed.


    And they all SUCKED.


    Edit: Oh god, you actually do want to increase burst damage in this game? Have you no idea of how the game mechanics work? I can already one shot someone if they don't respond quick enough with torps, and that's flying straight at them head on, no tracking required. You want to make that WORSE?

    Edit2: Before someone whines at that, I could do it with cannons or beams too, but it would require a different ability setup. I do it with beams on my sci ship, torps on my klink ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Irontygre wrote: »
    Increasing burst damage are not solutions. Reasons have already been discussed. NONE of your solutions address that.

    Not all my solutions increase burst damage...and the burst damage increases were only for the Cruisers who complain they'd be able to make little use of torps due to less tracking. But as I stated, the solution could be any combination of the listed.

    But feel free to refresh my memory on what else Im not addressing.

    Im suggesting we give heavier vessels like cruisers some increased resistance to torps(since its feared escorts would have too much of an advanatge in burst damage due to better utilization of torps.

    They could provide Cruisers with HYT I, but with a longer cool down for all tubes...they could only allow Cruisers to fire HYT I as the standard torp firing(including the standard HYT cool down).

    If the concern is true that Cruisers wont get a much use of their torps, than the use of HYT I or the ability to fire a series of standard torps in quicker succession shouldnt be a problem. But if its feared the increased burst damage, plus its actual rate of success for a hit are too much, then it proves the whole fear of Cruisers not being able to utilize limited tracking torps is unfounded.

    Increased burst(within reason) is acceptable if its useage rate is really as low as people fear....because the increased burst means nothing if the torps wont hit(like they say).

    Single tube cruisers are bit anemic anyway...giving Cruisers shorter torp cool downs better simulate their propensity for multiple tubes....if they utilize standard firings(non-HYT), then they can deliver more torps on target when they do get a good firing solution. This eliminates the need to mount more tubes...which could still utilize current gloabal cool downs.

    Whatever cours etakne, it doesnt have to be an increase in burst or DPS...but also a buff in corresponding resistance to the appropriate hull types.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anxiety wrote:
    Try again. Rear Admiral Trill, every single episode and story quest completed.


    And they all SUCKED.


    Edit: Oh god, you actually do want to increase burst damage in this game? Have you no idea of how the game mechanics work? I can already one shot someone if they don't respond quick enough with torps, and that's flying straight at them head on, no tracking required. You want to make that WORSE?

    Edit2: Before someone whines at that, I could do it with cannons or beams too, but it would require a different ability setup. I do it with beams on my sci ship, torps on my klink ship.

    As I state...the increase in damage is only if the cries for less tracking torps being useless on cruisers is true....frankly I dont think its an issue.

    I think they should just reduce the tracking and we all learn to adapt and take better shots.

    So no, I dont want more damage...it was never brought up in my original post....it was in response to those who think their cruisers couldnt function without the excessive tracking.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    As I state...the increase in damage is only if the cries for less tracking torps being useless on cruisers is true....frankly I dont think its an issue.

    I think they should just reduce the tracking and we all learn to adapt and take better shots.

    So no, I dont want more damage...it was never brought up in my original post....it was in response to those who think their cruisers couldnt function without the excessive tracking.

    Except torp damage is already significantly lower than cannons and dual beams, which share it's firing arc. Most people already don't like torps because of it, and having a cannon with 670 DPS when my torp launcher is 440 DPS, it's hard to disagree. If you make them start MISSING too, everyone will just stop using them altogether.

    And like it or not, they're not going to throw balance out the window because you want some immersion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Anxiety wrote:
    Except torp damage is already significantly lower than cannons and dual beams, which share it's firing arc. Most people already don't like torps because of it, and having a cannon with 670 DPS when my torp launcher is 440 DPS, it's hard to disagree. If you make them start MISSING too, everyone will just stop using them altogether.

    And like it or not, they're not going to throw balance out the window because you want some immersion.

    So what side of the damage argument are you on? Is it too much or too little? Increased burst damage due to torp boosts means notthing then if you can already put beams on in place of the torp and burst nearly as high or higher.

    If torps are so undesirable already, then who cares if people dont mount torps...maybe the problem is that energy weapons are too high...maybe torps are too little.

    If you are afraid that escorst would benefit too much from their easier utilization of torps, then balance the Cruisers with increased kinetic resistance...and/or more potent torp utilization by Cruisers.

    But trying to argue in circles is pointless...pick a side, pick an issue...arguing against both sides is just avoiding the issue...torp tracking in game is un-immersive and can be resolved with deminsihing their effectivness. Yes, it may deminish thier DPS in favor of burst...but thats what they are supposed to be!. They are power shots, upper cuts, knock out blows...you dont just spam them out. If energy weapons are so much more effective that players rather exclude torps, then we need to look there...not argue wasy to keep torps broken.

    Torps always had large intervals between firings in canon...make the torps burst count, but make them less spam. For all i care, make fore and aft tubes hull mounted and hull specific and not a slot, make additional torps slotted so you guys can put all beams and still have the standard compliment of torps as an option.

    So make all ships come with non-slotted torp tubes by default. At T3 all ships would come with an aft and fore tube standard and unslotted...cruisers get the aft tube at T2. Modifying the tube is just like normal....any other tubes would take up slots...there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It's unimmersive for you. It's fine as far as I'm concerned.

    Torepdoes don't need more flat damage, period. I don't really care what their DPS is. Here's the thing, getting obliterated with a single alpha strike is fun for no-one. Not for the initiator, nor for the receiver.

    Considering that I can do 28,000 damage+ with a quantum torpedo launcher (and I don't even have top-of-the-line gear), the LAST THING torpedoes needs is more flat damage. If anything, their cooldown needs to be reduced and their flat damage needs to be reduced as well. All of your suggestions go against that grain. Of course, this suggestion makes torpedoes even further useless for cruisers. So ....

    Seriously, torpedoes are fine, they don't need some sort of finite tracking. Even from an "immersion" perspective ... it's 2409. Imagine that torpedoes now use microwarpdrives and inertial dampeners.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Torps are, for the most part, hull only weapons. Considering that fact, I think they are balanced.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Irontygre wrote: »
    All of your suggestions go against that grain. Of course, this suggestion makes torpedoes even further useless for cruisers. So ....

    .

    The grain is flawed. torpedos wouldnt be useless, only require more skillful use of them for Cruisers. But as I said, if its felt they are uselss, then the devs should give all ships a standard compliment of fore tubes and aft tubes as appropriate as intergral to the hull...this way these defualt torpedos dont take away from mounting energy weapons. any additional tubes would them take weapons slots.

    This allows torpedos to be finally used as intended without forcing you people to sacrifice beam/energy DPS for torpedos they feel are useless...but it still keeps torps available.

    So you guys can DPS till your hearts content on energy weapons, never sacrifing a beam slot just to mount a torpedo...but the torpedo is always there if you need it.

    If the DPS is too high, then the devs need to reconsider the number of weapons slots or the progression curve of weapon output through the ranks.

    Or make a comprimise...the current high tracking torps should have signifcantly reduced yields(more of the casing has to be used for systems for tracking and manuevering)....while torpedos with maneuvering much more consistent with canon would have higher yields(less extras mean more volume for the war head).

    You Cruisers can elect to use whatever one you feel suites you best...but their is a trade off for either one.
Sign In or Register to comment.