test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Mine Launcher Revamp (WIP)

12346

Comments

  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    kimmera wrote: »
    ROFL, hollow point.... come back when you know what you are talking about. Hollow point only works because it is kinetic.

    The genesis device was only in Wrath of Khan and was not intended as a weapon. It was never being beamed onto a ship in an armed state, and besides... I never said they CAN'T. I said they DON'T. The genesis device wasn't armed by Kirk. It was armed by Khan in an attempt to take Kirk down with him.

    After that movie, canon was that the Genesis project was classified and buried as a mistake. Besides, if you are arguing the genesis device, why are you complaining about beaming explosives? Arm all ships with genesis torpedoes and simply wipe out any enemy or even whole systems.

    Ya, completely missed the point both times.

    Lemme put this a different way- IF mines and torpedos are interchangable (according to your rather broad view of non-energy weapons) why can't launchers be omitted from starships since mines and torpedos can be remotely armed once tossed out of an airlock or beamed into space?

    Lemme guess- because the DON'T (even tho they can, right ?)
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    Ya, completely missed the point both times.

    Lemme put this a different way- IF mines and torpedos are interchangable (according to your rather broad view of non-energy weapons) why can't launchers be omitted from starships since mines and torpedos can be remotely armed once tossed out of an airlock or beamed into space?

    Lemme guess- because the DON'T (even tho they can, right ?)

    1) I explained that in post 141.

    2) You keep looking at this from the 'using mines as torpedoes' angle rather than 'using torpedoes as mines.' The question isn't 'why can't a mine layer be used as a launcher?' The appropriate question is 'why cant a launcher be used as a mine layer?'
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    kimmera wrote: »
    1) I explained that in post 141.

    2) You keep looking at this from the 'using mines as torpedoes' angle rather than 'using torpedoes as mines.' The question isn't 'why can't a minel ayer be used as a launcher?' The appropriate question is 'why cant a launcher be used as a mine layer?'

    1. Yes, thats when I tossed in the bullet (torpedo with unengaged engine) that you so cheerfully disregarded as non-applicable to the conversation.

    2. and yes we covered this, where you claimed I was holding on to 'antiquated semantics'. BTW there already is a way to use a torpedo tube as a mine layer- it called the Breen Tranphasic cluster torpedo.

    It's important that a warhead reach it's target, but what to use to get it there. A car or a riding lawnmower will get you from point A to point B, but are they interchangable ?
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    1. Yes, thats when I tossed in the bullet (torpedo with unengaged engine) that you so cheerfully disregarded as non-applicable to the conversation.

    2. and yes we covered this, where you claimed I was holding on to 'antiquated semantics'. BTW there already is a way to use a torpedo tube as a mine layer- it called the Breen Tranphasic cluster torpedo.

    It's important that a warhead reach it's target, but what to use to get it there. A car or a riding lawnmower will get you from point A to point B, but are they interchangable ?

    Your bullet analogy consisted of trying to fire your 'torpedo with an unengaged engine' by hitting it with a hammer. In what bizarre world would you use such a technique on a torpedo or a mine? And your analogy still ignores the fact that unlike a bullet, both torpedoes and mines have target acquisition capacity and are to at least some degree self propelled. This is true even of a very old school magnetic mine.

    The fact that a car and a riding mower are not interchangeable is covered by the fact you don't need them both at once. You are not using the same round of ordinance as a mine and as a torpedo simultaneously.

    And the Breen weapon is closer to a FASCAM round. You can handle the concept of a torpedo spreading mines but only if it is made by the breen?
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    kimmera wrote: »
    Your bullet analogy consisted of trying to fire your 'torpedo with an unengaged engine' by hitting it with a hammer. In what bizarre world would you use such a technique on a torpedo or a mine? And your analogy still ignores the fact that unlike a bullet, both torpedoes and mines have target acquisition capacity and are to at least some degree self propelled. This is true even of a very old school magnetic mine.

    The fact that a car and a riding mower are not interchangeable is covered by the fact you don't need them both at once. You are not using the same round of ordinance as a mine and as a torpedo simultaneously.

    And the Breen weapon is closer to a FASCAM round. You can handle the concept of a torpedo spreading mines but only if it is made by the breen?

    Ahh, I get it now. Nice thread spamming technique. I didn't realize what was happening till just NOW.

    Well done.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • article001article001 Member Posts: 73 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    ok, guys . . . i'm gonna go ahead and lock this thread

    or get banned for impersonating a moderator

    whatever
  • treagersamatreagersama Member Posts: 20 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    article001 wrote: »
    ok, guys . . . i'm gonna go ahead and lock this thread

    or get banned for impersonating a moderator

    whatever

    ...and it's ARTICLE FTW!!!
  • abcde123123abcde123123 Member Posts: 342 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Ferengi mines (the ones that reduce shields) are useful against bosses with insane shield restis/regent Staadi in mirror and perhaps donatra / cse carrier.

    however the mines triggering mechanics is unclear: sometimes it catches the target from 2 km, sometimes you have to go closer.

    May be they are useful in pvp, but I don't play pvp that much.

    All in all, I got the set and I play with it, but it's more of a toy, you can easily go without.
  • carl104carl104 Member Posts: 87 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    @lordmalak1: it's cannon that you can just dump a torp out a tube unpowered as a mine. And since they definetly have drive systems they definetly CAN be used like STO mnes. The main reason they're not is that it's more effective to just fire the things.

    Thats where STO differs. In cannon firing large torpedo spreads is an innate ability of every launcher, (lets not get into the fact that torps aren't remotly kenetic in nature though), wheras in STO it's dependent on the ability.
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    carl104 wrote: »
    @lordmalak1: it's cannon that you can just dump a torp out a tube unpowered as a mine. And since they definetly have drive systems they definetly CAN be used like STO mnes. The main reason they're not is that it's more effective to just fire the things.

    Thats where STO differs. In cannon firing large torpedo spreads is an innate ability of every launcher, (lets not get into the fact that torps aren't remotly kenetic in nature though), wheras in STO it's dependent on the ability.

    Yes, I agree you can but why would you ? The warhead will explode like a mine, but traditionally a mines warhead was much larger because it DIDN'T have a propulsion system taking up warhead space. Like you said- "it's more effective to just fire the things" (referring to a torpedo). One thing comes to mind tho- IF you launched an unpowered torpedo out of the front of your ship then ran it over wouldn't the ship or mine be damaged ? IF you were launching an unpowered torpedo out the back why not use a mine, OR if you were trying to hit a chasing enemy why not fire it as a torpedo ?

    As I said before, mines and torpedo's are different weapons designed for different tactical situations and aren't really substitutes for each other. They simply are DIFFERENT weapons.

    But I get it now- this is a fantasy game using fantasy science. As said in 'Jurrasic Park': "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • carl104carl104 Member Posts: 87 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Torpedoes use matter antimatter reaction to power themselves. They're cannoniclly more powerful at short range because they don;t use up as much of their fuel. they littrially empty their warhead to power themselves. Their rated mximum range is the max range at their rated damage cannon wise.

    Also you might want to investigate the real world Captor Torpedo. Thats a modified torpedo deployd as a mine by subs from their ordinary tubes.

    Thin is the real point about mins is that they're laid hours/days/weeks/months/years before they detonate. They're not used once the shooting starts as a form of direct attack. Their laid well beforhand and are intended to autonomouslly attack enemy targets without freindly ships even being nearby. Their an area denial weapons, not an actual wepaon used to atack the enemy direcly with.

    he only situations we've seen in cannon where a mine makes sense is somthing like the "Enemy Mine" Episode where you've got ships groping around searching for each other. Then laying a slew of mines would do a great job of catching them out in their search pattern.
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    The Captor Mine is a mine with a torpedo propulsion system designed to launch as a torpedo, the deploy an anchored mine. A very specialized weapon like the ST:O breen Cluster torpedo.

    THAT is not a torpedo kicked out of an airlock with an unengaged propulsion system. KUDOS for bringing that one up, It does actually fit the proposal to have torpedo skills applying to mines (dispersal patterns), but it can NO way be used as a torpedo.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • defcon1776defcon1776 Member Posts: 313 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    My apology if this was already mentioned, I only read the first 4 pages:

    What about a torp/mine toggle with a shared cooldown...
    "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." Q
    Join the 44th Fleet. [FED and KDF] Apply Online: startrek.44thfleet.com
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    The Captor Mine is a mine with a torpedo propulsion system designed to launch as a torpedo, the deploy an anchored mine. A very specialized weapon like the ST:O breen Cluster torpedo.

    THAT is not a torpedo kicked out of an airlock with an unengaged propulsion system. KUDOS for bringing that one up, It does actually fit the proposal to have torpedo skills applying to mines (dispersal patterns), but it can NO way be used as a torpedo.

    If shot directly at an enemy vessel and the mines set to arm instantly on deployment, how would i differ in effect from a conventional proximity torpedo shot in precisely the same manner?
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    kimmera wrote: »
    If shot directly at an enemy vessel and the mines set to arm instantly on deployment, how would i differ in effect from a conventional proximity torpedo shot in precisely the same manner?

    ...because the fired torpedo's cargo (the mine) has to be deployed before the mine can go active. Deployment isn't instant.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • wraithshadow13wraithshadow13 Member Posts: 1,728 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    is it wrong of me to want a Torpedo that when fired turns out to be a Torpedo casing used as a casket? That way when i fire it, it hits the target and breaks open and you just see a tiny little body float away.....



    I'm kidding on that by the way, but what i'd really like to know from Borticus is if we could get a status update on this or any info regarding the mine/torp changes.
  • uxvorastrixuxvorastrix Member Posts: 21 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    This is getting off topic.

    Yes, they should combine skills and abilities for torpedos and mines. Any skill / ability / console that affects quantum warheads should affect both quantum torpedos and quantum mines.

    Also, there should be a separate mine deploy button (or remove it from the 'fire all' button).
    D&D DM/Player since 1982 - all versions except the despised 4e
  • drazursouthclawdrazursouthclaw Member Posts: 223 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    I approve heartily of a mine launcher revamp.
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    ...because the fired torpedo's cargo (the mine) has to be deployed before the mine can go active. Deployment isn't instant.

    That is only because there are safeties installed and because the utility of the type of option being discussed is a lot less practical in water.

    In RL, you are almost never in a situation where you would be deploying mines in combat, at least not while expecting enemy ships to run into them.
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    defcon1776 wrote: »
    My apology if this was already mentioned, I only read the first 4 pages:

    What about a torp/mine toggle with a shared cooldown...

    This actually seems like a really good idea.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    vids and guides and stuff

    [9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
  • captaintroikacaptaintroika Member Posts: 210 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Sadly, mines are going to remain almost useless until they are either not affected by FaW and AoE, or less affected (more HP)
  • allocaterallocater Member Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Every ship can only have 1 mine launcher so that needs to be taken into account for balance. Every mine BOFF skill is only for this one launcher, every console is only for this one launcher. This one launcher needs to do enough damage to justify it's installation.

    If ships are supposed to be able to equip 2 mine launcher, 3 or even 4. Then the shared cooldown needs to go. Make it 1 second shared cooldown, like torpedos. Then we might see dedicated mine builds, where someone fires 4 mine launchers within 4 seconds.

    Personally what I would like to see, is that it is beneficial for every escort to have a mine launcher and pass closely over an enemy ship and drop it. And then come around for another frontal strike, followed by a mine drop. (As opposed to standing still the entire fight and firing all frontal weapons. Escorts never stood still in canon)

    Designing the system from scratch, the mine types would probably be something like this:

    Single target mine: High damage against single target. (We can use Quantum or Tricobalt for this)

    Area of effect mine: Lower damage but wider radius, so that it does less damage if it hits 1 target, equal damage if it hits 2 targets and more damage if it hits 3+ targets. (We can use Photon for this)

    Utility mine: Shuts of engine, roots enemy, slows enemy down, drains energy (EMP mine) (We can use Chroniton for this)

    Which leaves Plasma and Transphasic. A DoT and DoT field for plasma is fine, it goes a little to utility and AoE. Transphasic against shielded targets, ok.

    edit: Or a Tanking mine would also be nice. A mine that attracts aggro, redirects shots. (antimatter (spread) mine??)

    Then every officer would have 'his' mine type. Damage mine for tac, Utiltiy mine for sci and tanking mine for eng. :-)
  • reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Read the first couple of pages but don't wanna go through all 18; did the idea of consolidating mine and torp skills get ditched or it still under consideration or not?
  • hurleybirdhurleybird Member Posts: 909
    edited August 2012
    Eliminating Dispersal Patterns

    As mentioned above, this comes down to an inconsistency of choice. The situational use of Mines when in comparison to Torpedo utility causes the vast majority of players to choose, almost unilaterally, to invest in Torpedo bridge officer abilities over Mine-based ones. Which is actually perfectly understandable - you simply get far more bang for your buck from a Torpedo High Yield, than you do from a Dispersal Patten Alpha, due to the larger number of situations in which Torpedoes can potentially outperform Mines.

    If you do end up buffing dispersal patterns to the point where they can be situationally more useful than torpedo abilities you've

    This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Mine abilities are unlocked one rank higher than Torpedo abilities (Dispersal I is Lieutenant, while Torpedo I is Ensign).

    Under this new proposal, the following changes would be seen by players:

    1) Dispersal Pattern Alpha (also known as Mine Trail) would be replaced with Torpedo: High Yield on all existing Bridge Officers, and reduced in rank accordingly.
    2) Dispersal Pattern Beta (also known as Mine Spread) would be replaced with Torpedo: Spread on all existing Bridge Officers, and reduced in rank accordingly.
    3) Torpedo: High Yield abilities would gain the functionality of Dispersal Pattern Alpha in addition to their existing functionality.
    4) Torpedo: Spread abilities would gain the functionality of Dispersal Pattern Beta in addition to their existing functionality.
    5) Both Torpedo: High Yield and Torpedo: Spread would be renamed to fit their new dual-functionality.

    Once this change was made, players that have both a Torpedo and a Mine equipped and activate a Torpedo bridge officer ability would see both of these weapons display their upgraded firing mode. Activating either the Torpedo or the Mine at this point would consume the firing mode, just as happens currently when multiple Torpedoes are equipped.


    This is not a good change.

    All this is going to do is make weapons more difficult to manage. If you have both torpedo and mine weapons on a ship you are *always* going to want to use the torpedo high yield or torp spread functionality, and you are *never* going to want to use the dispersal pattern functionality. Buffing the torpedo is just so much more powerful and useful. As such, your mine weapons will just get in the way and cause a headache.

    For the sake of argument let's say you change dispersal patterns to be sometimes more useful than torpedo abilities... doesn't that kind of ruin the justification for combining them in the first place?

    So either there's no point in combining them because people won't want to use the mine abilities and they'll just get in the way, or you change the dispersal patterns so that they actually become useful -- but if they were useful in the first place you wouldn't need to combine them! ;)

    (Note: Recall that Mines were recently removed from the "Fire All Projectiles" functionality, so accidentally using your Torpedo Spread on a Mine launcher is not likely to occur unless you've altered your keybinds.)

    That doesn't make it any better though.

    Under this new system if you want to fire a high yield instead of a dispersal pattern you then need to stop firing your energy weapons because the same key fires your mines (ugh) or set up separate firing keys for mines, torpedoes, and energy weapons (double ugh), and even if you had separate keys and could use them perfectly, you wouldn't be able to preload a high yield any more unless you stopped firing your mine weapons for the duration.

    My suggestions:

    1. If you still decide to combine them (which you shouldn't) then at least change the dispersal patterns so that there is a reason someone who runs both mines and torps might want to activate a dispersal pattern instead of a torp ability. Otherwise, what's the point?
    2. Don't combine torp and mine effects unless you can make the new boff ability use two seperate buttons on your tray for each weapon type. Having to time your weapons to either activate on a mine or torpedo as well taking away the ability to launch mines while a torpedo ability is preloaded will only result in headaches and frustration.
    3. Lastly, if you do buff dispersal patterns to the point where people might actually want to use them, please don't do it in a way that encourage yet more spam. Instead of laying more mines, perhaps you could lay stronger mines.
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Sadly, mines are going to remain almost useless until they are either not affected by FaW and AoE, or less affected (more HP)

    There is another way of looking at that, though.... the possibility of mines gives people more need to consider FAW or AoE's in one on one PvP builds.

    And there is still PvE use regardless...
  • aelfwin1aelfwin1 Member Posts: 2,896 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Your dispersal patterns will be rolled into Torpedo abilities, giving you additional functionality for an ability you already use.

    They will also be reduced in rank requirement (if we can figure out how to do it gracefully), allowing you to free up higher-rank boff slots for other uses.

    To be honest , this concerns me a bit .

    Currently (on my Tac) I have a primary "alpha" strike that consists of High Yield 3 + Rapid Fire 3 .

    My "beta" strike is High Yield 2 + Rapid Fire 2 .

    Now , are you going to move High Yield 3 to Lieutenant ?
    Are you going to move High Yield 2 to Ensign ?

    Because the above is what "reduced rank requirement" means to me .
    Now I dunno why yet , but I have a gut feeling that that will create a mess somehow ... -- cause the way I see it , there is no real need to reduce rank requirement .
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Another PERFECT example of the devs fixing something that THEY perceived to be wrong with the game, that is not.

    And now we will sit back and watch the next 6 months be consumed by them trying to fix it. Seriously, your actions and attitudes are idiotic.
  • kimmerakimmera Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    Another PERFECT example of the devs fixing something that THEY perceived to be wrong with the game, that is not.

    And now we will sit back and watch the next 6 months be consumed by them trying to fix it. Seriously, your actions and attitudes are idiotic.

    What in bloody blazes are you talking about? I thought this didn't survive Tribble?

    I wasn't aware that mines were considered great amazing weapons in STO, either. When did they become such?
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    kimmera wrote: »
    What in bloody blazes are you talking about? I thought this didn't survive Tribble?

    I wasn't aware that mines were considered great amazing weapons in STO, either. When did they become such?

    My point is why are the devs even talking about MINES! when there is so much already wrong with other things in the game that have been broken since beta. Leave the $%^*&^ mines and focus in fixing the serious issues.
  • zordar01zordar01 Member Posts: 318
    edited August 2012
    The only time mines were seen in Trek was in DS9 (fixed location), in Voyager I think they pitched torps out their aft launcher without firing them (basically deploying makeshift mines), and Enterprise ran into Romulan mines once. That's it.

    Mines don't fit the mobile space combat thing because they're by nature designed for static deployment - you drop them and leave, hoping a bad guy runs into them. Historically, mines are used to protect/interdict areas. They're the perfect guards because they never sleep/eat and are always on duty.

    The reason more people don't use mines is because players have to make them work. With torps you just aim and fire. Mines you need to plan out how to use and work around their limitations or you're just wasting them.

    On top of that, mines suck. Their damage is laughable. I'm sure a couple people make them work but overall they're a joke. I can't count how many clouds of mines I've flown through because I knew they'd do nothing to me. That's the exact opposite of mines in RL. If a ship in RL hits a mine it's pretty much screwed, warship or otherwise. Not so in STO.

    So here are my suggestions for mines in STO:

    1. Instant activation. That deploy delay thing means you can't just drop mines on a pursuing ship and have them be useful. This way you drop them and they're instantly cloaked and armed. Tailgaters beware.
    2. Untargetable beyond 2 km (+/- for sensors). They're mines, not beacons. This makes them far more useful because beyond 3km FAW and AoE won't affect them. And this way they won't add more spam to PvP because people won't see them until they're almost on top of them. Counterable by anything that disables cloak.
    3. More damage. Mines in RL are freaking horrible. Mines in STO are laughable. Double the damage, minimum.
    4. Mine skills are not the problem with mines. Combining mine/torp skills is a nice thought but will jack up any Boff with mines skills. There's no graceful way to take something away from players and not give them something in return. If you don't replace those newly-consolidated mine skills with something else, won't that cause a problem? Will we just have blank spots on our Boffs waiting to be filled? And what about the Boffs in our reserve roster? Will they just have blanks too so if we commission them we get incompletely-trained officers? Yeah, that's not going to go smoothly.

    Instead of ditching existing mine abilities, make them more powerful. Give torp skills rudimentary mine utility but if someone actually trains mine skills then their mines are truly scary. Then you don't have to take anything away from Boffs or invalidate player Expertise expenditures. And you don't sweat dual buffs this way - for torp skills whichever is fired first (torp or mine) gets the buff. If people want to run usable torp+mine buffs they can run as now, with torp+mine skills.

    For what it's worth.
    Star Trek: Online - Now with 100% more dinosaurs!!
Sign In or Register to comment.