First, a little trek science. The longer a beam array strip, the more emitters it has. The power of a shot from a phaser beam arrays depends on the size of the strip, and how many emitters on the strip were used to pre charge the shot. Thats the glow before the shot you see on the show.
Many of the canon ships in the game sport nice larger arrays. They are large for a reason! Most of the cryptic ships lack any sort of large strips. Most were just tacked on as an afterthought by the looks of it. Unfortunately the ship designers didnt get the hint. Strips that small could deal only a tiny fraction of the damage a long array on a galaxy class could for example. In fact, Ive seen number crunching in various trek forum discussions about phaser arrays that conclude a full power shot from the main arrays on a galaxy class is by far the most powerful energy weapon on any Starfleet ship, illustrated in Q who. please disregard generations. that 1 shot should have shot through that bird of prey, and the bird of prey behind it. None of the sovs arrays are long enough to compete with the galaxies ether, regardless if its emitters are a bit more powerful. It does have a slight edge in torpedo firepower though. Ok so now Ive probably bored most of you with trek babble so Ill get on with what I mean to talk about.
Seeing as dual cannons come in 2 different flavors, Id like to see a beam array variant in the same vein. The heavy beam array (or whatever you want to call it) would fire a single beam instead of 4 during its firing cycle but have the same dps as an equivalent beam array. The same idea as dual cannons and heavy dual cannons basically. This weapon should be limited only to tier 3 cruisers, escorts or science ship and up, if they have arrays long enough. The advanced heavy cruiser (excelsior) would not be able to use them seeing as it only has small array segments. (why did the centaur get larger more modern strips but the full size excelsior did not?)
There may be some issues. A critical will really hurt, and a beam overload would hit harder than a dual beam bank. Limiting its arc wouldnt make sense, regardless of balance issues. Maybe turn the power drain up a bit? It would basically be limited to fed ships too, seeing as Klingons dont use long arrays. As a tradeoff, dual beam banks dont look TRIBBLE being fired from a Klingon ship! The sight of 2 beams coming from the rim of a saucer makes my skin crawl! It looks so wrong, and its just about the only option for cruisers that want to do any spike damage.
Only a forward firing arc would make sense in most cases. Except for maybe the galaxy. Weapon hardpoints on the back of the tier 5 galaxys main array for this weapon would be cool, some over the shoulder shots from its main guns. I know the saucer pet has hardpoints there.
Along with this weapons debut, a lot of ship models need overhauling. Those afterthought front strips on a lot of ship costumes need some love. Also, Im not asking for an elaborate glow before fire animation, that would probably be impossible unless it was built into the core game engine. Hit fire, a 1 second delay with a charge sound effect, then the beam fires, and then the cool down. Good enough! If they want to make this game more trek, this would be the perfect first step, imo.
tl;dr cliff notes
-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice
-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps
-it is limited to forward arcs
-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array
-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks TRIBBLE when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine
-the visual charge up effect would be to hard to make and is not needed, maybe a slight delay before the beam fires with a short charge sound
um.... I like the idea in principle, but cruisers are not spike damage specialist, and they shouldn't be
that's not really the point. any ship should basically be able to use them, except like the excelsior and defiant and tier 1 and 2 ships. i mostly was thinking how fun an advanced escort would be with them
Still, beams aren't spike weapons. If you want a beam weapon that hits harder, then cannons are going to be displaced on escorts. Normal BeamArrays will stop being used period. Unless the Heavy Beam arrays are limited to T4-T5 cruisers.
Still, beams aren't spike weapons. If you want a beam weapon that hits harder, then cannons are going to be displaced on escorts. Normal BeamArrays will stop being used period. Unless the Heavy Beam arrays are limited to T4-T5 cruisers.
dual cannons are still going to do a ton more damage. what i'm proposing dose not have higher dps then a regular beam array. also, since no ship has any large arrays aft, the heavy beam arrays would be forward only and regular beam array would still be mounted aft. also, beams are absolutely, positively spike weapons and always have been. beam overload in any form is what i think of when i think spike
LOVE the concept, but I think your over complicating the idea with too much 'canon'. Meaning simply that if you would want something like this in the game, it should be available at ALL levels, just like the Dual Heavy Cannons, and available to Klingon cruisers as well.
THAT way, there is still enough canon to make sense (Only cruisers could logically have enough power to use them, just as DHC can only be used by Escorts), but not enough to over complicate things.
Now just like DHCs, it would have to litterally be the SAME DPS as a standard Beam Array, just shoot ONE sustained beam, instead of 4. Making it appear to be firing MUCH slower. Also, for added flavor, I think the beam should 'charge' in between shots, with a nice sharp humm that increases in pitch as it gets closer to firing. So potentially, it could do higher crits, and a Beam Overload would be DEVISTATING with this array... but no more devistating than an escort using DHCs and Scatter Volley.
The drawback... should be (as you said) a weapon power drain of -12 instead of 10, and because it fires at a much slower rate (one beam 'pulse', instead of the standard 4 in a normal beam array), the enemy has more time to heal their shields, and perform more abilities between shots. Although the difference is litterally in 1 second incriments, over time it adds up.
dual cannons are still going to do a ton more damage. what i'm proposing dose not have higher dps then a regular beam array. also, since no ship has any large arrays aft, the heavy beam arrays would be forward only and regular beam array would still be mounted aft. also, beams are absolutely, positively spike weapons and always have been. beam overload in any form is what i think of when i think spike
I kinda see what your getting at now, using a higher powered single shot beam array over a multiple shot per cycle array.
I think the problem is that since both types have the same DPS it needs to have a distinct advantage to off set the possibility of a miss doing no damage per firing cycle, where as in a normal beam array (i believe, mostly escort guy here) has multiple chances to hit in a single firing cycle.
For instance if it had a higher chance to proc, maybe 5 percent over 2.5, I could see having to really chose between the two beam types.
I would go with fire 2 twice in a cycle instead of 1. I has to put a little pressure on a ship to heal itself. A multi beam overload would be nice sort of like HYT, each beam does less damage per shot but has a higher chance to crit.
Is there any canon (or even "soft canon") that explicitly says that longer phaser array = stronger blast?
I looked at memory alpha and I can't see anything like that. When the Defiant was fighting with the Lakota, O'Brien commented that it had an awfully lot of fire power for an Excelsior. It didn't have any phaser strips and was using the same emitter layout as any other Excelsior. The emitters themselves may have been replaced to an improved design, or maybe the power grid of that ship was upgraded to accomate higher power transfers.
I figured the strips and increased number of emitters would simply decrease the number of firing blind spots, not inherently increase the power of the phaser. And if no source claims a long strip = stronger phaser correlation, then what was that "number crunching" based on?
Gameplay wise, I don't see the need of coming up with a stronger array type.
I think the actual argument here is Logic vs. Game-play.
Based on Logic, there should be heavy beam arrays and they should only be available on larger ships as per the OP.
Based on game-play, a heavy beam array would displace the cannon and throw off the balance of the weapons.
Since this is a game, I would have to side with game-play though I would prefer that logic would prevail. You can play a game that defies logic but if there is no game-play, you cannot play the game regardless of how logical it is.
Uhh... don't the existing dual beam arrays already fill this gameplay aspect? (lower arc, higher damage, less damage than dual cannons)? The only difference I see is the roleplay desire for it to be a single beam, with 1 shot.
Also, I chalk the heavy damage against the Borg shown in Q Who to the fact that the Borg had not encountered/adapted to phasers before, didn't have shields (or appropriate shields), and their structure isn't exactly reinforced. Oh also, television special "WOW" effects. Short of Q Who and the Enterprise episode "Silent Enemy" where they cratered an asteroid, I can't recall seeing phasers ever having devestating effects like that. Careful about what you take as canon and not ("please disregarding Generations"), especially considering the example you chose was the exception to the rule, not the norm portrayed on the shows and movies (yes, including Generations).
Besides, Beam Overload I think nicely satisfies your big, uber one-shot phaser blast, even to the point of how it would drain the available phaser power levels.
EDIT: one thing I would want to take from this thread is better definition of the phaser strips on the ships. For example, especially on the Galaxy, the strips are not clear enough (or missing altogether). Even cooler would be if they could include the animations of how the charge would crawl before firing (though this may bring out issues regarding how often phasers currently fire now, how many beams you can load out, delay between firing and damage being registered, etc.)
Is there any canon (or even "soft canon") that explicitly says that longer phaser array = stronger blast?
I looked at memory alpha and I can't see anything like that. When the Defiant was fighting with the Lakota, O'Brien commented that it had an awfully lot of fire power for an Excelsior. It didn't have any phaser strips and was using the same emitter layout as any other Excelsior. The emitters themselves may have been replaced to an improved design, or maybe the power grid of that ship was upgraded to accomate higher power transfers.
I figured the strips and increased number of emitters would simply decrease the number of firing blind spots, not inherently increase the power of the phaser. And if no source claims a long strip = stronger phaser correlation, then what was that "number crunching" based on?
Gameplay wise, I don't see the need of coming up with a stronger array type.
i believe the tng technical manual basically explained it as i did, just a bit more eloquently. also, why would arrays be that long if it didn't make a difference in power? based on the charge up effect, you see energy gathering form the entire array and it is then fired. all the modern canon 24th century ships have their saucer section built so that the array ends up as long as possible. that's what i base my argument on.
ships firing from banks like the excelsior and Miranda on DS9 have never bean explained. there must be modern tech under the hull and that was deemed a better solution then rebuilding the primary hull to have a wrapping array installed.
the number crunching was from a 10 page + thread in the star trek legacy forum from years ago. i'll try to remember details best i can. basically they took published emitter output numbers, examined close up views of the long arrays, and literally counted how many emitter were in the big arrays. we then examined the craters that the enterprise caused in the borg cube and calculated how much energy it would have taken to vaporize that much material. for the density of the hull, we used the density of water for Christ sake, so a major low ball number. the number ended up being astronomical, and with it they calculated the energy output of any number of emitters working together. there was then discussion on diminishing return, but we decided that if that was a real issue, they wouldn't have bothered making the arrays on the galaxy that long. there was pages of discussion examining every use of phasers in tng, and the theories were further refined as examples mounted. then they compared the sov's arrays and the galaxies arrays and came to the conclusion that the sovereign's guns arnt actually more powerful than the galaxy at all. that sparked a huge debate as to witch was the overall strongest ship. i was especially glad there ended up being a tier 5 galaxy, felt more like its rightful place to me. these were great fun to be a part of if your an absolute geek and canon defender.
Call me cynical, but... there are never advancements in miniaturization in the Star Trek universe... so naturally a Galaxy's phasers must be more powerful than any new advancement. I'm sure Paramount marketting and visual design staff had nothing to do with it, and continuity errors never exist in a television show.
The Connie has phaser banks which house two emitters in each AFAIK. The Galaxy has a strip that houses 200 (see here).
Memory Alpha compares the emitter to a barrel of a gun. Having more guns doesn't make the shot of one of those individual guns any more powerful, it just allows for a greater volume of shots. Having 200 emitters along the hull in a circle pretty much means there are no blind spots. Whereas the Connie has emitters arranged in pairs of two (though I don't know the total number of pairs, it's a whole lot less than two hundred).
I see it as being similar to if I had exposed electrical wire leading to a lightbulb, and if for some hypothetical reason the wire glowed as the electrons passed through it. The length of the wire isn't going to make the light bulb burn any more brightly.
The part that glows appears to simply be the phaser energy traveling along its circuit until it reaches the appropriate emitter/"gun barrel" to be fired. The circuitry (or whatever you want to call it) is visible since all the emitters are relatively exposed in a sunken strip with bare space in between them. If that's the case, then ships like the Constition and Excelsior would have the exact same thing going on, you just can't see it because the emitters are completely surrounded by hull plating, so you wouldn't be able to see the energy traveling along the circuits to those emittters when they are fired.
Granted it's all fictional technology so there's no real answer to what is going on, and in the absence of some explicit statement by the people that had a hand in representing that fictional technology, I don't see any reason to believe that a phaser blast from a phaser array is inherently any more powerful than a phaser blast from a phaser bank. The phaser types are denoted in a way that implies strength. Type XII > XI > X > .... > III , etc. And technical manuals put the phasers on the Sovereign as type XII vs. the X on a Galaxy. Therefore I would think (in addition to Geordi boasting it as the most advanced ship) that the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy, and the narrower profile of the saucer section would require fewer phaser emitters to cover all potential blind spots, hence the shorter arrays.
Bah, BreachAndClear, who needs logic like that when we got 10 pages of fan analysis on our hands? :P
yep. beat this topic to death years ago. not gunna debate it all over again. bottom line, there are dual cannons and heavy dual cannons. i want a heavy bank to go along with a beam bank. the details are in the original post.
the phaser array is made up of dozens of individual emitters linked together. The array set up allows more power to be sent into any one emitter and directed at a target, instead of weapons banks.
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
ok. i see that no one is actually reading the original post. i understand. it was long, and very detailed.
its hard to be given all the information you would need to understand the concept so you don't have to make posts like this. anyway, i'm just gonna post some cliff notes
-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice
-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps
-it is limited to forward arcs
-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array
-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks TRIBBLE when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine
-the visual charge up effect would be to hard to make and is not needed, maybe a slight delay before the beam fires with a short charge sound
-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks TRIBBLE when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine.
Why not just have Dual Beam Banks fire from the top & bottom of the Saucer Section, from the dorsal and ventral arrays at the same time?
So then the only thing changing is the aesthetic of the beam firing once instead of four times?
That is an unnecessary change. If they wanted to make a more aesthetically pleasing dual beam shot for cruiser, all they would have to do is move the two beams closer together.
As installed in the Galaxy class, the main ship's phasers are rated as Type X, the largest emitters available for starship use. Individual emitter segments are capable of directing 5.1 megawatts... The Galaxy class supports twelve phaser arrays in two sizes, located on both dorsal and ventral surfaces as well as two arrays for lateral coverage.
A typical large phaser array aboard the USS Enterprise, such as the upper dorsal array on the Saucer Module, consists of two hundred emitter segments in a dense linear arrangement for optimal control of firing order, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. Groups of emitters are supplied by redundant sets of energy feeds from the primary trunks of the electro plasma system (EPS), and are similarly interconnected by fire control, thermal management, and sensor lines. The visible hull surface configuration of the phaser is a long shallow raised strip, the bulk of the hardware submerged within the vehicle frame...
Energy is conveyed from each flow regulator to the PDM (plasma distribution manifold), a secondary computer-controlled valving device at the head end of each prefire chamber...
Energy from all discharged segments passes directionally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, converging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at c to the target. Narrow beams are created by rapid segment order firing; wider beams are, of course, prone to marked power loss per unit area covered.
and so we see that the energy is not magnified by each segment in the phaser array, merely passed along to where the beam will be focused.
Which is as I thought. There is no doubt that the arrays are probably more efficient than the banks as perhaps the ability to pass energy along the array would mean that an EPS feed could power groups of emitters rather than each emitter requiring its own. But the power actually discharged from the emitter doesn't appear to have anything to do with the size of the array, but rather the size of the emitter.
But efficiency is not a factor that would affect gameplay, and so there is really no reason for ships with long arrays to fire beams that are any different from ships like the Constitution or Excelsior.
As I said earlier, and the TNG manual apparently supports, longer arrays provide for more optimal targeting. For instance, if you've played Bridge Commander, the shorter and separated arrays of the Ambassador class' primary hull creates blind spots that the Galaxy does not have. But the concept of ship specific blind spots should not be incorporated into STO as it would imbalance the game.
ok. i see that no one is actually reading the original post. i understand. it was long, and very detailed.
its hard to be given all the information you would need to understand the concept so you don't have to make posts like this. anyway, i'm just gonna post some cliff notes
-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice
-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps
-it is limited to forward arcs
-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array
If this is a purely visual thing, then yes.
But if you're thinking of actually compressing that damage, then simply put, *no*. Beam overload would receive a quite unnecessary 2-4x boost in damage when used with that array (I think it would also take half/quarter the damage from damage shields etc).
Which is as I thought. There is no doubt that the arrays are probably more efficient than the banks as perhaps the ability to pass energy along the array would mean that a plasma manifold could power groups of emitters rather than one. But the power actually discharged from the emitter doesn't appear to have anything to do with the size of the array.
I think the fact that beam arrays on fed ships are strips and, as such, emitters must pass the power down the line makes them less efficient by definition. Banks, like cannons, draw power directly from the EPS system. Since there is no system in our universe that is perfect, energy must be bled by the emitters in an array each time it is passed down the "line."
You are correct in saying that beam power has nothing to do with the length of the array, so long as power output is proportional to the size of the array. If it took 4.2 gigawatts to power a ten meter array, then one should assume it takes 6.3 gigawatts to power a fifteen meter array at the same intensity. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary
As I said earlier, and the TNG manual apparently supports, longer arrays provide for more optimal targeting. For instance, if you've played Bridge Commander, the shorter and separated arrays of the Ambassador class' primary hull creates blind spots that the Galaxy does not have. But the concept of ship specific blind spots should not be incorporated into STO as it would imbalance the game.
I think the fact that beam arrays on fed ships are strips and, as such, emitters must pass the power down the line makes them less efficient by definition. Banks, like cannons, draw power directly from the EPS system. Since there is no system in our universe that is perfect, energy must be bled by the emitters in an array each time it is passed down the "line."
You are correct in saying that beam power has nothing to do with the length of the array, so long as power output is proportional to the size of the array. If it took 4.2 gigawatts to power a ten meter array, then one should assume it takes 6.3 gigawatts to power a fifteen meter array at the same intensity. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary
Well, by efficient I mean that it eliminates alot of the circuitry that would otherwise cramp a lot of room on board a ship like a galaxy class. If all two hundred emitter segments had their own EPS feed, that would be a much more complicated system rather than simply allowing one EPS feed to pass energy along the array to the appropriate emitter.
Perhaps a Type X phaser fed directly would be more powerful than a Type X embedded in an array, but the requirements necessary to power all of the emitters would probably be impractical. And if they removed emitters to accomodate fewer, but more powerful phasers fed directly by the EPS system, then it would also be at the expense of optimal targeting.
I appreciate the immersion factor as you do OP however by creating an array with high DMG potential and a large arc would eliminate the entire purpose of escort dmg potential.
The dual beam bank fills the function of a heavy beam array and like your suggestion can only be mounted on a forward slot.
Having a 250 arc weapon with high burst dmg potential from Beam Overload....That would push cruisers into an OP we haven't seen yet. If you want the heavy beam dmg, equip the dual beam banks.
The visuals of the dual beams are another argument.
Note:
In regards to cannons, the Dual cannon is the dmg upgrade of a single cannon.
Heavy Dual Cannons are the same as a dual cannon, just provides higher spike dmg potential.
For arrays, the Beam array is the equivalent of a single cannon.
The Dual Beam Bank is the equivalent of a dual cannon....and it only has a 90 degree firing arc compared to the 250 of an array. It doesn't make sense balance wise to make a 250 arc heavy weapon. It would eliminate the entire point of the higher dmg of a dual beam bank in the first place.
Comments
that's not really the point. any ship should basically be able to use them, except like the excelsior and defiant and tier 1 and 2 ships. i mostly was thinking how fun an advanced escort would be with them
dual cannons are still going to do a ton more damage. what i'm proposing dose not have higher dps then a regular beam array. also, since no ship has any large arrays aft, the heavy beam arrays would be forward only and regular beam array would still be mounted aft. also, beams are absolutely, positively spike weapons and always have been. beam overload in any form is what i think of when i think spike
LOVE the concept, but I think your over complicating the idea with too much 'canon'. Meaning simply that if you would want something like this in the game, it should be available at ALL levels, just like the Dual Heavy Cannons, and available to Klingon cruisers as well.
THAT way, there is still enough canon to make sense (Only cruisers could logically have enough power to use them, just as DHC can only be used by Escorts), but not enough to over complicate things.
Now just like DHCs, it would have to litterally be the SAME DPS as a standard Beam Array, just shoot ONE sustained beam, instead of 4. Making it appear to be firing MUCH slower. Also, for added flavor, I think the beam should 'charge' in between shots, with a nice sharp humm that increases in pitch as it gets closer to firing. So potentially, it could do higher crits, and a Beam Overload would be DEVISTATING with this array... but no more devistating than an escort using DHCs and Scatter Volley.
The drawback... should be (as you said) a weapon power drain of -12 instead of 10, and because it fires at a much slower rate (one beam 'pulse', instead of the standard 4 in a normal beam array), the enemy has more time to heal their shields, and perform more abilities between shots. Although the difference is litterally in 1 second incriments, over time it adds up.
I kinda see what your getting at now, using a higher powered single shot beam array over a multiple shot per cycle array.
I think the problem is that since both types have the same DPS it needs to have a distinct advantage to off set the possibility of a miss doing no damage per firing cycle, where as in a normal beam array (i believe, mostly escort guy here) has multiple chances to hit in a single firing cycle.
For instance if it had a higher chance to proc, maybe 5 percent over 2.5, I could see having to really chose between the two beam types.
I looked at memory alpha and I can't see anything like that. When the Defiant was fighting with the Lakota, O'Brien commented that it had an awfully lot of fire power for an Excelsior. It didn't have any phaser strips and was using the same emitter layout as any other Excelsior. The emitters themselves may have been replaced to an improved design, or maybe the power grid of that ship was upgraded to accomate higher power transfers.
I figured the strips and increased number of emitters would simply decrease the number of firing blind spots, not inherently increase the power of the phaser. And if no source claims a long strip = stronger phaser correlation, then what was that "number crunching" based on?
Gameplay wise, I don't see the need of coming up with a stronger array type.
Based on Logic, there should be heavy beam arrays and they should only be available on larger ships as per the OP.
Based on game-play, a heavy beam array would displace the cannon and throw off the balance of the weapons.
Since this is a game, I would have to side with game-play though I would prefer that logic would prevail. You can play a game that defies logic but if there is no game-play, you cannot play the game regardless of how logical it is.
Also, I chalk the heavy damage against the Borg shown in Q Who to the fact that the Borg had not encountered/adapted to phasers before, didn't have shields (or appropriate shields), and their structure isn't exactly reinforced. Oh also, television special "WOW" effects. Short of Q Who and the Enterprise episode "Silent Enemy" where they cratered an asteroid, I can't recall seeing phasers ever having devestating effects like that. Careful about what you take as canon and not ("please disregarding Generations"), especially considering the example you chose was the exception to the rule, not the norm portrayed on the shows and movies (yes, including Generations).
Besides, Beam Overload I think nicely satisfies your big, uber one-shot phaser blast, even to the point of how it would drain the available phaser power levels.
EDIT: one thing I would want to take from this thread is better definition of the phaser strips on the ships. For example, especially on the Galaxy, the strips are not clear enough (or missing altogether). Even cooler would be if they could include the animations of how the charge would crawl before firing (though this may bring out issues regarding how often phasers currently fire now, how many beams you can load out, delay between firing and damage being registered, etc.)
i believe the tng technical manual basically explained it as i did, just a bit more eloquently. also, why would arrays be that long if it didn't make a difference in power? based on the charge up effect, you see energy gathering form the entire array and it is then fired. all the modern canon 24th century ships have their saucer section built so that the array ends up as long as possible. that's what i base my argument on.
ships firing from banks like the excelsior and Miranda on DS9 have never bean explained. there must be modern tech under the hull and that was deemed a better solution then rebuilding the primary hull to have a wrapping array installed.
the number crunching was from a 10 page + thread in the star trek legacy forum from years ago. i'll try to remember details best i can. basically they took published emitter output numbers, examined close up views of the long arrays, and literally counted how many emitter were in the big arrays. we then examined the craters that the enterprise caused in the borg cube and calculated how much energy it would have taken to vaporize that much material. for the density of the hull, we used the density of water for Christ sake, so a major low ball number. the number ended up being astronomical, and with it they calculated the energy output of any number of emitters working together. there was then discussion on diminishing return, but we decided that if that was a real issue, they wouldn't have bothered making the arrays on the galaxy that long. there was pages of discussion examining every use of phasers in tng, and the theories were further refined as examples mounted. then they compared the sov's arrays and the galaxies arrays and came to the conclusion that the sovereign's guns arnt actually more powerful than the galaxy at all. that sparked a huge debate as to witch was the overall strongest ship. i was especially glad there ended up being a tier 5 galaxy, felt more like its rightful place to me. these were great fun to be a part of if your an absolute geek and canon defender.
Memory Alpha compares the emitter to a barrel of a gun. Having more guns doesn't make the shot of one of those individual guns any more powerful, it just allows for a greater volume of shots. Having 200 emitters along the hull in a circle pretty much means there are no blind spots. Whereas the Connie has emitters arranged in pairs of two (though I don't know the total number of pairs, it's a whole lot less than two hundred).
I see it as being similar to if I had exposed electrical wire leading to a lightbulb, and if for some hypothetical reason the wire glowed as the electrons passed through it. The length of the wire isn't going to make the light bulb burn any more brightly.
The part that glows appears to simply be the phaser energy traveling along its circuit until it reaches the appropriate emitter/"gun barrel" to be fired. The circuitry (or whatever you want to call it) is visible since all the emitters are relatively exposed in a sunken strip with bare space in between them. If that's the case, then ships like the Constition and Excelsior would have the exact same thing going on, you just can't see it because the emitters are completely surrounded by hull plating, so you wouldn't be able to see the energy traveling along the circuits to those emittters when they are fired.
Granted it's all fictional technology so there's no real answer to what is going on, and in the absence of some explicit statement by the people that had a hand in representing that fictional technology, I don't see any reason to believe that a phaser blast from a phaser array is inherently any more powerful than a phaser blast from a phaser bank. The phaser types are denoted in a way that implies strength. Type XII > XI > X > .... > III , etc. And technical manuals put the phasers on the Sovereign as type XII vs. the X on a Galaxy. Therefore I would think (in addition to Geordi boasting it as the most advanced ship) that the Sovereign is more powerful than the Galaxy, and the narrower profile of the saucer section would require fewer phaser emitters to cover all potential blind spots, hence the shorter arrays.
yep. beat this topic to death years ago. not gunna debate it all over again. bottom line, there are dual cannons and heavy dual cannons. i want a heavy bank to go along with a beam bank. the details are in the original post.
Single cannon = large firing arc low damage (phaser strip)
Dual cannons = narrow firing arc high damage (DBB)
Dual heavy cannons = narrow firing arc high burst damage.(Heavy DBB)
Tho I've always wondered why theres no heavy single cannons, I mean dual heavy inplies single heavy otherwise they would just be called heavy cannons.
so maybe add it like the dual cannons, same dps just more burst damage
Single heavy cannon = large firing arc high burst damage (heavy phaser strip)
Variety mostly maybe more build options.
ok. i see that no one is actually reading the original post. i understand. it was long, and very detailed.
its hard to be given all the information you would need to understand the concept so you don't have to make posts like this. anyway, i'm just gonna post some cliff notes
-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice
-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps
-it is limited to forward arcs
-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array
-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks TRIBBLE when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine
-the visual charge up effect would be to hard to make and is not needed, maybe a slight delay before the beam fires with a short charge sound
-its more trek
Why not just have Dual Beam Banks fire from the top & bottom of the Saucer Section, from the dorsal and ventral arrays at the same time?
That is an unnecessary change. If they wanted to make a more aesthetically pleasing dual beam shot for cruiser, all they would have to do is move the two beams closer together.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg
and so we see that the energy is not magnified by each segment in the phaser array, merely passed along to where the beam will be focused.
Yeah, I really do carry it around with me
But efficiency is not a factor that would affect gameplay, and so there is really no reason for ships with long arrays to fire beams that are any different from ships like the Constitution or Excelsior.
As I said earlier, and the TNG manual apparently supports, longer arrays provide for more optimal targeting. For instance, if you've played Bridge Commander, the shorter and separated arrays of the Ambassador class' primary hull creates blind spots that the Galaxy does not have. But the concept of ship specific blind spots should not be incorporated into STO as it would imbalance the game.
If this is a purely visual thing, then yes.
But if you're thinking of actually compressing that damage, then simply put, *no*. Beam overload would receive a quite unnecessary 2-4x boost in damage when used with that array (I think it would also take half/quarter the damage from damage shields etc).
I think the fact that beam arrays on fed ships are strips and, as such, emitters must pass the power down the line makes them less efficient by definition. Banks, like cannons, draw power directly from the EPS system. Since there is no system in our universe that is perfect, energy must be bled by the emitters in an array each time it is passed down the "line."
You are correct in saying that beam power has nothing to do with the length of the array, so long as power output is proportional to the size of the array. If it took 4.2 gigawatts to power a ten meter array, then one should assume it takes 6.3 gigawatts to power a fifteen meter array at the same intensity. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary
hear hear
Well, by efficient I mean that it eliminates alot of the circuitry that would otherwise cramp a lot of room on board a ship like a galaxy class. If all two hundred emitter segments had their own EPS feed, that would be a much more complicated system rather than simply allowing one EPS feed to pass energy along the array to the appropriate emitter.
Perhaps a Type X phaser fed directly would be more powerful than a Type X embedded in an array, but the requirements necessary to power all of the emitters would probably be impractical. And if they removed emitters to accomodate fewer, but more powerful phasers fed directly by the EPS system, then it would also be at the expense of optimal targeting.
The dual beam bank fills the function of a heavy beam array and like your suggestion can only be mounted on a forward slot.
Having a 250 arc weapon with high burst dmg potential from Beam Overload....That would push cruisers into an OP we haven't seen yet. If you want the heavy beam dmg, equip the dual beam banks.
The visuals of the dual beams are another argument.
Note:
In regards to cannons, the Dual cannon is the dmg upgrade of a single cannon.
Heavy Dual Cannons are the same as a dual cannon, just provides higher spike dmg potential.
For arrays, the Beam array is the equivalent of a single cannon.
The Dual Beam Bank is the equivalent of a dual cannon....and it only has a 90 degree firing arc compared to the 250 of an array. It doesn't make sense balance wise to make a 250 arc heavy weapon. It would eliminate the entire point of the higher dmg of a dual beam bank in the first place.