You should pay better attention to Voyager. The Intrepid class was designed as a tactical ship, not a science ship. It was fast, maneuverable, and had armament rivaling the Akira and uprated Excelsior. The Intrepid class didn't even have a science lab until they built Astrometrics. That's not much of a "science ship".
1 new one... right. You do realize that the Akira class was designed and shown on-screen as a cruiser, right? For one, it's big (464m long, 315m wide, 84m tall), almost 3 times the size of the Defiant, and almost twice the width of the Prometheus. The Akira was also shown in "Message in a Bottle" as the main ship chasing the Prometheus. They sent an Akira, flanked by two Defiants. A cruiser flanked by two escorts.
Don't assume that the game is always right in where it places ships. For example:
Nebula - designed, built, and flown as a cruiser. Like most large ships, it did have science labs, but it was primarily a cruiser with a role similar to the Galaxy.
D'kyr - primarily a cruiser. Even the description in-game acknowledges that the D'kyr was intended as a cruiser, not a science ship.
Saber - intended as a support ship, not a full escort. As shown in First Contact and multiple DS9 battles, it wasn't designed or intended to take the same damage as a Defiant-class, or even the Prometheus.
Akira - as mentioned before, this ship was mostly a cruiser.
Intrepid - as mentioned before, this ship was designed as quick-response tactical cruiser
As to the heavy beam array, I definitely support this. For ships like the Galaxy, their primary arrays could deal short quick bursts, or solid heavy bursts. It'd be nice to be able to switch out at will, but having a heavy beam array would be a good compromise.
I pretty much agree to everything you said.
Regarding most of those ships being cruisers, the devs should have just accepted that Stat Trek works different than a generic Sci-Fi setting, and give Starfleet mainly Cruisers.
But artificially squeezing some ships into roles they are not intended for, is just wrong.
And yeah, i strongly support heavy beam arrays for the biggest cruisers, as long as they do the same DPS as the normal ones. (I can already hear that crying if cruisers had more firepower than those tiny escorts, man i hate MMO mechanics. :mad:)
Regarding most of those ships being cruisers, the devs should have just accepted that Stat Trek works different than a generic Sci-Fi setting, and give Starfleet mainly Cruisers.
But artificially squeezing some ships into roles they are not intended for, is just wrong.
And yeah, i strongly support heavy beam arrays for the biggest cruisers, as long as they do the same DPS as the normal ones. (I can already hear that crying if cruisers had more firepower than those tiny escorts, man i hate MMO mechanics. :mad:)
Live long and prosper.
all ships should have the same dps.
main difference being how it is applied.
Cruisers should deliver a steady drumbeat of weapons fire. One hammer blow after another, steady, unyielding and once in a while a big one.
Escorts should make PASSES. their weapons basically firing one large burst of doom and then going to recharge.
A pass. You turn to enemy, let loose several seconds worth of pulsed energy weapon doom and your squall of torpedoes in one large burst that the opponent has to deal with while yo uweer away to expose unit sections of your shields and prepare the next assault. Taking a steady beating to your front should not be the point of this.
Science ships should expand on what they currently do: precise shots that after a while allow them windows of opportunity to deal severe hull damage and that over the course of the fight apply debuffs to the target. (yeah and please don't let those disappear just because you quickly switched targets and healed somebody....)
Rearrange heals to long term hots, improve upon bleed through mechanics, let attrition run its course over the battle, not the time on target appliance of overinflated escort dps and snb-chain nuking.
Then redo the power sets so that every branch has healing improvements, tanking and nasty attacks.
Equalize the ship classes, the power sets and the captains. They all should be roughly be able to achieve the same goal, with only the method being different.
Tac officers in escorts might abandon Cannons altogether in the effort to create this much feared "Death Ray". With the Tac captains resistance debuffs and the Boff lots to have BO3, it IS quite possible to acheive...
Except that my idea is for cruisers and science ships only, not escorts. The only ship that it becomes overpowered in is the Excelsior.
Now don't get me wrong. Don't think I'm flaming your idea. I WANT more weapon diversity with Beams. The Heavy Beam Array idea just needs it's numbers adjusted. It's DPV needs lowered and it's DPS boosted, but not to the point of making either Dual Beams or Dual Heavies useless.
I could go with this.
Hey, what if a heavy beam array had the volley dmg of a DBB, but a 180 degree arc (forward only, not slottable in the rear) and cost 15 energy to fire? Cruiser and sci ship only, so escorts could still use DBB's and get the same dps but in a narrower arc(not a problem for the DHC loving players, right?) and spend less energy firing them.
So cruisers would get a wider firing arc but firing the maximum of four of them would end up costing 45 energy, which is almost as much as a single beam overload. If a player has 125 weapon energy and pops off a beam overload with one of these, they're down to 75 energy. Then if they fire three more heavy beam arrays, they're down to 45 energy and greatly reduced damage per array with each successive shot.
I'm now waiting for some escort players to scream "NOOOO UNFAIR DEATHRAY GRRRARRR I AM NOT THINKING RATIONALLY!!!11", but I think that'd be pretty well balanced.
Forgotten-Nemesis, I've been thinking about the concept of "Heavy Beams" myself a bit independently of your idea.
When I saw your thread I wondered how similar your approach would be to mine.
The interesting thing is that it's totally different from what I came up with.
I do find your idea quite interesting and I don't understand why anyone would mistake your idea as some kind of "Death Ray".
However I certainly hope you are not offended when I write down my (counter-) proposal.
My idea revolves around the way the Prometheus was shown on "Message in a Bottle".
The ship fired its Phasers at much closer range than other ships.
This was particularly obvious when she engaged the Nebula that was sent to recapture her.
So my idea was actually to put a heapon called "Heavy Beam" onto escorts as an additional option.
They'd have firing arcs and DPS values based on [(Singe/Dual-)Beam+(Single/Dual)Cannon]/2 with a power comsumption calculated in a similar fashion.
Firing arcs would be:
Heavy Beam Array 210 degrees
Heavy Beam Bank: 60 degrees
Their effective range would also be limited similar to cannons, meaning they'd only be effective at close range.
However I also have an idea for a weapon ideal for cruisers and Science ships:
A Ranged Beam, which is simply put the Beams we have now with an effective range of 12 Km, allowing cruisers and Science ships to engage their enemy first.
Power drain would be 2 points higher than regular models but I think that would be apropirate.
I would exempt Klingon Battlecruisers from this weapon, they can close the range gap with their cloak when they need to.
It would also give Federation Cruisers a weapon they could use that their Klingon counterparts can't while the Klingon models still have their cannons.
limiting the firing arc to try to balance it is a none starter. the point of using arrays over ball turrets is the near unlimited firing arc you can have with them. in fact the longer an array is, the better arc it has and the more powerful the shots it can fire, that's just the nature of them.
limiting the firing arc to try to balance it is a none starter. the point of using arrays over ball turrets is the near unlimited firing arc you can have with them. in fact the longer an array is, the better arc it has and the more powerful the shots it can fire, that's just the nature of them.
I don't recall any scene where the arc was limited by the size of the array, more by the shape of the ship, obstructing arcs because nacelles etc were in the way.
According to the TNGTM, the longer arrays have advantages in terms of cooling, distributing the heat between the intividual elements.
This should allow a higher rate of fire or more power to be pumped into them.
So you're half right regarding the length of the "strips".
As for balancing: the Galaxy's main array covers 300 degrees of the saucer, meaning the absolute minimum arc for them would be 300 degrees, yet in STO it's "only" 250.
So you've got the firing arcs limited for balancing reasons already in the game.
I'd like to add that there is also a possible in-universe explanation why arcs could be limited on weapons like the ones I propose:
The independent elements of a Phaser Bank each have an emitter that has to both focus and "aim" the energy discharge, which is pretty much what gives banks their flexibility and great firing arcs.
The weapon I propose would have to handle more juice without overheating while the beam still needs to remain focused without becoming unstable.
So the result would be an emitter that is built differently meaning its internal buildup would have a much greater emphasis on the need to keep the beam focused and less emphasis on allowing it to be directed into various directions, resulting in the limitation of the firing arc compared to conventional beams without being as restricted as the weapons on the Defiant for example.
I'd like to add that there is also a possible in-universe explanation why arcs could be limited on weapons like the ones I propose:
The independent elements of a Phaser Bank each have an emitter that has to both focus and "aim" the energy discharge, which is pretty much what gives banks their flexibility and great firing arcs.
The weapon I propose would have to handle more juice without overheating while the beam still needs to remain focused without becoming unstable.
So the result would be an emitter that is built differently meaning its internal buildup would have a much greater emphasis on the need to keep the beam focused and less emphasis on allowing it to be directed into various directions, resulting in the limitation of the firing arc compared to conventional beams without being as restricted as the weapons on the Defiant for example.
heavy cannons d onot get these kinds of extra nerfs. so why should beams get them?
if you think the developers look more friendly on over nerfed proposals then you are wrong.
It seems we're debating on whether cruisers and sci ships should have a beam spike damage weapon or not. They both have sustained DPS weaponry. I don't believe the cruisers and sci ships should be able to perform a spike of doom on an enemy. Thats not their alloted tactic in the balance set up of this game. Yes, that could change, but i really see no reason to do so.
I can more sympathize for a sci ship having poor DPS potential than a cruiser. Mine dishes with the best of them, but when I had my science ship (before going cruiser) I found cannons were a lot more effective in combat.
It seems we're debating on whether cruisers and sci ships should have a beam spike damage weapon or not. They both have sustained DPS weaponry. I don't believe the cruisers and sci ships should be able to perform a spike of doom on an enemy. Thats not their alloted tactic in the balance set up of this game. Yes, that could change, but i really see no reason to do so.
I can more sympathize for a sci ship having poor DPS potential than a cruiser. Mine dishes with the best of them, but when I had my science ship (before going cruiser) I found cannons were a lot more effective in combat.
actually all ship classes should be capable of dealing burst spike damage. Because not always do yo uhave teams that have the perfect setup.
I agree cruisers and sci should not deal as much as escorts, but at least be able to bring down a hammer once in a while.
heavy cannons d onot get these kinds of extra nerfs. so why should beams get them?
if you think the developers look more friendly on over nerfed proposals then you are wrong.
I'm not interested in currying favors, neither with you nor with the devs.
But I'd rather start on the careful side of things and go upwards because that's just the way I think and the way I have designed fan-ships and weapons for the "Babylon 5 Wars" tabletop for the past 8 years.
Also people are more likely to actually listen to a carefully designed concept than some overpowered gizmo.
If you wish to begin overpowered and then start trimming a concept that's your personal preference but don't accuse me of trying to chum up with the devs because you operate differently.
For example it would be rather easy to increase effective range from 5 to 7 or 8 kilometers, giving the weapon I proposed an attacking distance right inbetween the conventionel beams and the cannons.
That's what I originally thought of but decided to omit to see what others think of such a limited range.
But appearently carefulness only results in being called a borderline bootlicker.
Also the difference between dual cannons and heavy cannons is simply a different critical severity for higher power demands, while the weapon I propose has more DPS than beams but it seems you don't actually read a concept but prefer to flame it without thought.
Cruisers are fine as the are.. I take 1st place in damage over escorts more often than not, and that in a ship that is both easier to play and FAR more survivable.
SV are special, since they can deal significant damage without ever shooting a weapon (Hello, TBR3, FBP3, GW3?).
Escorts have allready been nerfed multiple times, this (indirect) nerf would just result in Escorts being more of a liability than a benefit in combat.
I don't really think there needs to be a heavy beam, afterall, coupled with Beam overload it would probably be leathal, howver, what we do need is 'Beam Turrets'. Currently if you want to use Dual Beam Arrays for a frontal setup, you are forced to use canon turrets, which do not share the same BO skills as your Beams, as such, players areforced to spec into cannons and beams, as well as require 2 types of BO skills to make it work effectivly.
So, whilst I don't really think we need a heavy beam array, adding a beam turret would introduce teh ability for more varied setups on ships.
Make it cost more power to fire and maybe even a 2.5% chance to disable one of your own systems for 5-10 seconds. This would include Weapons, Shields, and Engines. Considering Science and Cruisers are not the DPS ships and we don't want to take anything from Escorts. They already have less hull and shields in exchange for their DPS, its only fair to warrant some type of negative.
I don't really think there needs to be a heavy beam, afterall, coupled with Beam overload it would probably be leathal, howver, what we do need is 'Beam Turrets'. Currently if you want to use Dual Beam Arrays for a frontal setup, you are forced to use canon turrets, which do not share the same BO skills as your Beams, as such, players areforced to spec into cannons and beams, as well as require 2 types of BO skills to make it work effectivly.
So, whilst I don't really think we need a heavy beam array, adding a beam turret would introduce teh ability for more varied setups on ships.
Yeah, the Cruisers need a buff. It's not enough that engies have good power management and can load FAW on those zombies. Let's give them even more potential DPS, all in the name of "diversity". As if you need more DPS to kill PvE NPCs.
And if we're going to go that route. Why don't you first give me an increased flight angle, so I don't have to take the long route to deal with spiraling cruiser jockeys?
Yeah, the Cruisers need a buff. It's not enough that engies have good power management and can load FAW on those zombies. Let's give them even more potential DPS, all in the name of "diversity". As if you need more DPS to kill PvE NPCs.
And if we're going to go that route. Why don't you first give me an increased flight angle, so I don't have to take the long route to deal with spiraling cruiser jockeys?
That's assuming all Engineers fly Cruisers, my two engineers fed side actually do not fly cruisers. Also, I personally want heavy penalties to ships who use this type of beam. As I mentioned in my above post, they aren't not built for this. Costing twice the power to fire a beam coupled with the risk to knock out one of your own subsystems feels fair to me.
I would like this Idea if the volleys would be kept at the same number as regular beam arrays, just the damage is increased by a smaller percent.
What would make sense to me: Heavy beam array with a reduced ark of 200 degrees, not 180 degrees so you're not constantly closing in on your target while you circle and keep them in range, but with the 20% reduction in arc you get 1.2 x the regular damage. This puts them at a place between the dual beam banks and the regular beam arrays.
I would like this Idea if the volleys would be kept at the same number as regular beam arrays, just the damage is increased by a smaller percent.
What would make sense to me: Heavy beam array with a reduced ark of 200 degrees, not 180 degrees so you're not constantly closing in on your target while you circle and keep them in range, but with the 20% reduction in arc you get 1.2 x the regular damage. This puts them at a place between the dual beam banks and the regular beam arrays.
Uuuh... You want a LARGER arc on these oneshot arrays?
I object to your usage of "oneshot" to describe the strength of the weapon I proposed. It's obviously false, and it means you either didn't fully analyse the capability of such a weapon, or you're blatantly exaggerating it in order to make it sound like a much worse idea than it actually is. I didn't figure you to be the kind of person who'd resort to strawman tactics, nor did I imagine you were incapable of understanding what was presented to you.
I object to your usage of "oneshot" to describe the strength of the weapon I proposed. It's obviously false, and it means you either didn't fully analyse the capability of such a weapon, or you're blatantly exaggerating it in order to make it sound like a much worse idea than it actually is. I didn't figure you to be the kind of person who'd resort to strawman tactics, nor did I imagine you were incapable of understanding what was presented to you.
It means no such thing
Single beam array can hit with >26k damage with BOL1
Dual Beam Banks can hit with >97k damage with BOL3
(these are merely my personal best - The BOL1 hit was off a RSV, and the BOL3 hit a DBB off an Escort)
And you want these heavy beams to have higher damage than either of those weapons?
Hello Excelsiors doing >150k hits within a 160-180 degree frontal arc.
Im not "incapable" of understanding anything.. I have plenty of experience flying every ship (save the D'kyr, I refuse to fly that eyesore).. I primarily play Fed, and usually in a Cruiser or RSV.
I'm very glad that I said I didn't imagine you were. I didn't imply that I changed my mind.
Overall, I understand your analysis and I agree. Which is why I previously suggested tweaking my idea to do the same damage as a DBB, 180 degree arc, forward weapon only, and cost 15 energy per shot over a normal beam array's 10 energy. Sort of an upgraded beam array that larger ships can use due to bigger more robust power systems than escorts which still get DBB's that cost 10 energy and have the 90 degree arc (which should not be horrible due to their maneuverability).
So your Excelsior could still hit for >97k damage with BOL3, but it could do it from the side too. Would that be overpowered, especially since subsequent shots from heavy arrays would drain up to 45 more energy if you had four in the front?
I'm very glad that I said I didn't imagine you were. I didn't imply that I changed my mind.
Overall, I understand your analysis and I agree. Which is why I previously suggested tweaking my idea to do the same damage as a DBB, 180 degree arc, forward weapon only, and cost 15 energy per shot over a normal beam array's 10 energy. Sort of an upgraded beam array that larger ships can use due to bigger more robust power systems than escorts which still get DBB's that cost 10 energy and have the 90 degree arc (which should not be horrible due to their maneuverability).
So your Excelsior could still hit for >97k damage with BOL3, but it could do it from the side too. Would that be overpowered, especially since subsequent shots from heavy arrays would drain up to 45 more energy if you had four in the front?
Maybe, maybe not.. Its not like its difficult maintaining weapon energy, if you only have to worry about the frontal arrays.
Between EP2W, EPS Console and performance skills, I can maintain ~95-100 weapons power on a cruiser with 8 arrays fireing (as long as I dont activate FAW)
Shifting in the narrow area between full broadside, and frontals only, it should be little problem to keep the juice flowing for those Heavy Arrays.
Also.. It would most likely be used as a spikeweapon.. The escorts just run 1 DBB for BOL, since they just need the spike from it.
Id expect to see a cruiser with just 1 HBA in front and the rest regular weapons (thats how I would use it) and looking at it that way, you pay 5 drain for a 180 degree BOL3 DBB attack.
It might work, it might be too powerful (and Im of the opinion that its better to start to low and improve stuff, than make it too powerful and nerf it after (always results in QQ)
Spikedamage on a Cruiser is an controversial thing really.. They have far, far FAR better sustained damage, and with top spikedamage, Im not sure if they would completely outclass Escorts.
I think beam boats are lacking in weapon types compared with escorts. Right now we have:
Universal:
Beam array
Dual beam bank
Single cannon
Turret
Escorts only:
Dual cannons
Dual heavy cannons
So my idea is a heavy beam array for cruisers and science ships only. Double the damage of a standard beam array. Half the rate of fire, like dual heavies have compared to dual cannons so its DPS would be the exact same as a standard beam array. Energy cost of 15. 180 degree arc an can only be mounted in a forward weapon hardpoint, making it difficult to keep targets in the broadside arc wth stern arrays. I don't think this would make cruisers capable of burst damage on the level of escorts due to the tactical powers like beam overload being relatively weak for non-escorts, and it wouldn't have the 10% critical multiplier that dual heavies have either.
What do you guys think?
Be an interesting idea. Not sure it could be implimented, since cruisers already have the ability to carry 6-8 beams already; and let's not even get into the turret-boats.
Single beam array can hit with >26k damage with BOL1
Dual Beam Banks can hit with >97k damage with BOL3
(these are merely my personal best - The BOL1 hit was off a RSV, and the BOL3 hit a DBB off an Escort)
And you want these heavy beams to have higher damage than either of those weapons?
Hello Excelsiors doing >150k hits within a 160-180 degree frontal arc.
Im not "incapable" of understanding anything.. I have plenty of experience flying every ship (save the D'kyr, I refuse to fly that eyesore).. I primarily play Fed, and usually in a Cruiser or RSV.
yeah.. because you pull those numbers every shot. k.
I once in while get massive crit on my quantums too, surely those are overpowered....
yeah.. because you pull those numbers every shot. k.
I once in while get massive crit on my quantums too, surely those are overpowered....
I don't think so. They are the hardest hitting torpedo when unmodified in game, second only to the Tricobalt (not sure how the Har-peng fits in the damage department), but I don't think they're overpowered.
Uuuh... You want a LARGER arc on these oneshot arrays?
(200 deg. is larger than 180 deg.)
Please read and understand my posts before replying, thank you. In the way I described they would have less power than dual beam banks, thank you.
The idea is that they have the same number of shots as the dual beams and single beams but do 20% more than singles, and 20% less than duals. I think you didn't understand what I was saying there so I said it again. I hope my repeating myself helps you understand. *pat pats*
Please read and understand my posts before replying, thank you. In the way I described they would have less power than dual beam banks, thank you.
The idea is that they have the same number of shots as the dual beams and single beams but do 20% more than singles, and 20% less than duals. I think you didn't understand what I was saying there so I said it again. I hope my repeating myself helps you understand. *pat pats*
I would like this Idea if the volleys would be kept at the same number as regular beam arrays, just the damage is increased by a smaller percent.
What would make sense to me: Heavy beam array with a reduced ark of 200 degrees, not 180 degrees so you're not constantly closing in on your target while you circle and keep them in range, but with the 20% reduction in arc you get 1.2 x the regular damage. This puts them at a place between the dual beam banks and the regular beam arrays.
The part I redded for you: You propose a "reduced" arc of 200 deg. instead of the 180 deg... 200 degree is a wider area than 180 degree..
Furthermore in blue, there are a 10% difference between 200 and 180
So.. Did you mean you could live with a reduced arc of 160 degree (roughly 11% difference) and 1.11 x the regular damage?
Comments
Regarding most of those ships being cruisers, the devs should have just accepted that Stat Trek works different than a generic Sci-Fi setting, and give Starfleet mainly Cruisers.
But artificially squeezing some ships into roles they are not intended for, is just wrong.
And yeah, i strongly support heavy beam arrays for the biggest cruisers, as long as they do the same DPS as the normal ones.
(I can already hear that crying if cruisers had more firepower than those tiny escorts, man i hate MMO mechanics. :mad:)
Live long and prosper.
all ships should have the same dps.
main difference being how it is applied.
Cruisers should deliver a steady drumbeat of weapons fire. One hammer blow after another, steady, unyielding and once in a while a big one.
Escorts should make PASSES. their weapons basically firing one large burst of doom and then going to recharge.
A pass. You turn to enemy, let loose several seconds worth of pulsed energy weapon doom and your squall of torpedoes in one large burst that the opponent has to deal with while yo uweer away to expose unit sections of your shields and prepare the next assault. Taking a steady beating to your front should not be the point of this.
Science ships should expand on what they currently do: precise shots that after a while allow them windows of opportunity to deal severe hull damage and that over the course of the fight apply debuffs to the target. (yeah and please don't let those disappear just because you quickly switched targets and healed somebody....)
Rearrange heals to long term hots, improve upon bleed through mechanics, let attrition run its course over the battle, not the time on target appliance of overinflated escort dps and snb-chain nuking.
Then redo the power sets so that every branch has healing improvements, tanking and nasty attacks.
Equalize the ship classes, the power sets and the captains. They all should be roughly be able to achieve the same goal, with only the method being different.
The game will be better off for it.
Except that my idea is for cruisers and science ships only, not escorts. The only ship that it becomes overpowered in is the Excelsior.
I could go with this.
Hey, what if a heavy beam array had the volley dmg of a DBB, but a 180 degree arc (forward only, not slottable in the rear) and cost 15 energy to fire? Cruiser and sci ship only, so escorts could still use DBB's and get the same dps but in a narrower arc(not a problem for the DHC loving players, right?) and spend less energy firing them.
So cruisers would get a wider firing arc but firing the maximum of four of them would end up costing 45 energy, which is almost as much as a single beam overload. If a player has 125 weapon energy and pops off a beam overload with one of these, they're down to 75 energy. Then if they fire three more heavy beam arrays, they're down to 45 energy and greatly reduced damage per array with each successive shot.
I'm now waiting for some escort players to scream "NOOOO UNFAIR DEATHRAY GRRRARRR I AM NOT THINKING RATIONALLY!!!11", but I think that'd be pretty well balanced.
very well said. there needs to be a space overhawl so bad
When I saw your thread I wondered how similar your approach would be to mine.
The interesting thing is that it's totally different from what I came up with.
I do find your idea quite interesting and I don't understand why anyone would mistake your idea as some kind of "Death Ray".
However I certainly hope you are not offended when I write down my (counter-) proposal.
My idea revolves around the way the Prometheus was shown on "Message in a Bottle".
The ship fired its Phasers at much closer range than other ships.
This was particularly obvious when she engaged the Nebula that was sent to recapture her.
So my idea was actually to put a heapon called "Heavy Beam" onto escorts as an additional option.
They'd have firing arcs and DPS values based on [(Singe/Dual-)Beam+(Single/Dual)Cannon]/2 with a power comsumption calculated in a similar fashion.
Firing arcs would be:
Heavy Beam Array 210 degrees
Heavy Beam Bank: 60 degrees
Their effective range would also be limited similar to cannons, meaning they'd only be effective at close range.
However I also have an idea for a weapon ideal for cruisers and Science ships:
A Ranged Beam, which is simply put the Beams we have now with an effective range of 12 Km, allowing cruisers and Science ships to engage their enemy first.
Power drain would be 2 points higher than regular models but I think that would be apropirate.
I would exempt Klingon Battlecruisers from this weapon, they can close the range gap with their cloak when they need to.
It would also give Federation Cruisers a weapon they could use that their Klingon counterparts can't while the Klingon models still have their cannons.
I don't recall any scene where the arc was limited by the size of the array, more by the shape of the ship, obstructing arcs because nacelles etc were in the way.
According to the TNGTM, the longer arrays have advantages in terms of cooling, distributing the heat between the intividual elements.
This should allow a higher rate of fire or more power to be pumped into them.
So you're half right regarding the length of the "strips".
As for balancing: the Galaxy's main array covers 300 degrees of the saucer, meaning the absolute minimum arc for them would be 300 degrees, yet in STO it's "only" 250.
So you've got the firing arcs limited for balancing reasons already in the game.
The independent elements of a Phaser Bank each have an emitter that has to both focus and "aim" the energy discharge, which is pretty much what gives banks their flexibility and great firing arcs.
The weapon I propose would have to handle more juice without overheating while the beam still needs to remain focused without becoming unstable.
So the result would be an emitter that is built differently meaning its internal buildup would have a much greater emphasis on the need to keep the beam focused and less emphasis on allowing it to be directed into various directions, resulting in the limitation of the firing arc compared to conventional beams without being as restricted as the weapons on the Defiant for example.
heavy cannons d onot get these kinds of extra nerfs. so why should beams get them?
if you think the developers look more friendly on over nerfed proposals then you are wrong.
I can more sympathize for a sci ship having poor DPS potential than a cruiser. Mine dishes with the best of them, but when I had my science ship (before going cruiser) I found cannons were a lot more effective in combat.
actually all ship classes should be capable of dealing burst spike damage. Because not always do yo uhave teams that have the perfect setup.
I agree cruisers and sci should not deal as much as escorts, but at least be able to bring down a hammer once in a while.
I'm not interested in currying favors, neither with you nor with the devs.
But I'd rather start on the careful side of things and go upwards because that's just the way I think and the way I have designed fan-ships and weapons for the "Babylon 5 Wars" tabletop for the past 8 years.
Also people are more likely to actually listen to a carefully designed concept than some overpowered gizmo.
If you wish to begin overpowered and then start trimming a concept that's your personal preference but don't accuse me of trying to chum up with the devs because you operate differently.
For example it would be rather easy to increase effective range from 5 to 7 or 8 kilometers, giving the weapon I proposed an attacking distance right inbetween the conventionel beams and the cannons.
That's what I originally thought of but decided to omit to see what others think of such a limited range.
But appearently carefulness only results in being called a borderline bootlicker.
Also the difference between dual cannons and heavy cannons is simply a different critical severity for higher power demands, while the weapon I propose has more DPS than beams but it seems you don't actually read a concept but prefer to flame it without thought.
SV are special, since they can deal significant damage without ever shooting a weapon (Hello, TBR3, FBP3, GW3?).
Escorts have allready been nerfed multiple times, this (indirect) nerf would just result in Escorts being more of a liability than a benefit in combat.
So, whilst I don't really think we need a heavy beam array, adding a beam turret would introduce teh ability for more varied setups on ships.
^ please something like this.
And if we're going to go that route. Why don't you first give me an increased flight angle, so I don't have to take the long route to deal with spiraling cruiser jockeys?
That's assuming all Engineers fly Cruisers, my two engineers fed side actually do not fly cruisers. Also, I personally want heavy penalties to ships who use this type of beam. As I mentioned in my above post, they aren't not built for this. Costing twice the power to fire a beam coupled with the risk to knock out one of your own subsystems feels fair to me.
What would make sense to me: Heavy beam array with a reduced ark of 200 degrees, not 180 degrees so you're not constantly closing in on your target while you circle and keep them in range, but with the 20% reduction in arc you get 1.2 x the regular damage. This puts them at a place between the dual beam banks and the regular beam arrays.
Uuuh... You want a LARGER arc on these oneshot arrays?
(200 deg. is larger than 180 deg.)
I object to your usage of "oneshot" to describe the strength of the weapon I proposed. It's obviously false, and it means you either didn't fully analyse the capability of such a weapon, or you're blatantly exaggerating it in order to make it sound like a much worse idea than it actually is. I didn't figure you to be the kind of person who'd resort to strawman tactics, nor did I imagine you were incapable of understanding what was presented to you.
It means no such thing
Single beam array can hit with >26k damage with BOL1
Dual Beam Banks can hit with >97k damage with BOL3
(these are merely my personal best - The BOL1 hit was off a RSV, and the BOL3 hit a DBB off an Escort)
And you want these heavy beams to have higher damage than either of those weapons?
Hello Excelsiors doing >150k hits within a 160-180 degree frontal arc.
Im not "incapable" of understanding anything.. I have plenty of experience flying every ship (save the D'kyr, I refuse to fly that eyesore).. I primarily play Fed, and usually in a Cruiser or RSV.
I'm very glad that I said I didn't imagine you were. I didn't imply that I changed my mind.
Overall, I understand your analysis and I agree. Which is why I previously suggested tweaking my idea to do the same damage as a DBB, 180 degree arc, forward weapon only, and cost 15 energy per shot over a normal beam array's 10 energy. Sort of an upgraded beam array that larger ships can use due to bigger more robust power systems than escorts which still get DBB's that cost 10 energy and have the 90 degree arc (which should not be horrible due to their maneuverability).
So your Excelsior could still hit for >97k damage with BOL3, but it could do it from the side too. Would that be overpowered, especially since subsequent shots from heavy arrays would drain up to 45 more energy if you had four in the front?
Maybe, maybe not.. Its not like its difficult maintaining weapon energy, if you only have to worry about the frontal arrays.
Between EP2W, EPS Console and performance skills, I can maintain ~95-100 weapons power on a cruiser with 8 arrays fireing (as long as I dont activate FAW)
Shifting in the narrow area between full broadside, and frontals only, it should be little problem to keep the juice flowing for those Heavy Arrays.
Also.. It would most likely be used as a spikeweapon.. The escorts just run 1 DBB for BOL, since they just need the spike from it.
Id expect to see a cruiser with just 1 HBA in front and the rest regular weapons (thats how I would use it) and looking at it that way, you pay 5 drain for a 180 degree BOL3 DBB attack.
It might work, it might be too powerful (and Im of the opinion that its better to start to low and improve stuff, than make it too powerful and nerf it after (always results in QQ)
Spikedamage on a Cruiser is an controversial thing really.. They have far, far FAR better sustained damage, and with top spikedamage, Im not sure if they would completely outclass Escorts.
Be an interesting idea. Not sure it could be implimented, since cruisers already have the ability to carry 6-8 beams already; and let's not even get into the turret-boats.
yeah.. because you pull those numbers every shot. k.
I once in while get massive crit on my quantums too, surely those are overpowered....
I don't think so. They are the hardest hitting torpedo when unmodified in game, second only to the Tricobalt (not sure how the Har-peng fits in the damage department), but I don't think they're overpowered.
Please read and understand my posts before replying, thank you. In the way I described they would have less power than dual beam banks, thank you.
The idea is that they have the same number of shots as the dual beams and single beams but do 20% more than singles, and 20% less than duals. I think you didn't understand what I was saying there so I said it again. I hope my repeating myself helps you understand. *pat pats*
I understood it quite fine, thank you.
The part I redded for you: You propose a "reduced" arc of 200 deg. instead of the 180 deg... 200 degree is a wider area than 180 degree..
Furthermore in blue, there are a 10% difference between 200 and 180
So.. Did you mean you could live with a reduced arc of 160 degree (roughly 11% difference) and 1.11 x the regular damage?