Inferior, or playing our class well enough not to dispair about our lower DPS?
One thing I noticed, the good scis and engs don't complain about being broken, and they perform adequately.
Its only the poorly performing ones that cry endlessly.
If you want to be the damage king, but didn't pick tac at the character select screen, don't be disapointed when you aren't the damage king.
If you really don't like your roll as a sci or an eng, re-roll, nothing is stopping you. You will be happier if you are playing a class that gives you what you want out of a class, instead of trying to pigeonhole one class type into another.
There is no need of it.
Edit: Did people somewhere along the line forget that this is a co-operative game?
good scis and engs just roll a tac, and go back to sci and eng to make fun builds, that are performing like mediocre tacs in escorts can.
and you still do not understand, that the problem is not the dps, but everything else. there is no point in sci pve, as there is nothing to sci (even pvp is questionable). tanking can be useful, but a good tac in an esscort will have more than enough tanking for anything but multiple 30k hits (which cruisers would not survive anyhow).
so having no power on beams that would give any consistant burst like DHCs have, is not too much. since escorts can tank with dhcs, why cant cruisers and scis with beams dps?
I am not the one who made tacs and escorts be good at most of the things, I just ask for making the rest of the classes comparable to them (and I am not crying to nerf tacs, so noone can actually hold that against me).
I will outDPS most tacs in a sci ship (not only the vesta mind you), with a sci or an eng, but that wont change the fact that I have less tools on my hands, especially when it comes to beams (yeah I am still on topic)
You play what you like, I'll play what I like, I suppose.
I used to have tac envy. I was a suck TRIBBLE sci.
I rolled a tac, had some fun. Learned a lot.
I haven't played my tac in ages. I learned how to sci.
I can tac all day long if that were my thing.
I agree. In the end it doesn't really matter what your dps is, its whether or not you had fun.
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
good scis and engs just roll a tac, and go back to sci and eng to make fun builds, that are performing like mediocre tacs in escorts can.
and you still do not understand, that the problem is not the dps, but everything else. there is no point in sci pve, as there is nothing to sci (even pvp is questionable). tanking can be useful, but a good tac in an esscort will have more than enough tanking for anything but multiple 30k hits (which cruisers would not survive anyhow).
so having no power on beams that would give any consistant burst like DHCs have, is not too much. since escorts can tank with dhcs, why cant cruisers and scis with beams dps?
I am not the one who made tacs and escorts be good at most of the things, I just ask for making the rest of the classes comparable to them (and I am not crying to nerf tacs, so noone can actually hold that against me).
I will outDPS most tacs in a sci ship (not only the vesta mind you), with a sci or an eng, but that wont change the fact that I have less tools on my hands, especially when it comes to beams (yeah I am still on topic)
If you can do more damage than 'most tacs', who cares about 'how many tools' you have at your disposal? If you want a damage dealing Sci/Eng build, use those limited tools then, just like a 'tanking' tac/escort has to use a pretty limited build to achieve it's tanking ability. I don't buy that there needs to be 'more variety' in damage dealing options, because that seems to assume that there are no other valid goals to build towards. In other words, I'm not sure why 3 different ways to do the same DPS is 'better' variety than 3 different ways to support a team in a mission, even at the cost of some raw dps.
I'm not even going to get into the value in PVE and PVP of what Eng/Sci bring to the table, because if you don't find those game play styles rewarding, no amount of internet argument will change your opinion. Suffice to say, though, if you don't think there is enough value in those abilities to make them feel 'useful' in a team setting, then don't play them. This game would be much better off if only the people with the temperament for playing team support players would actually play those classes, and everyone who wanted to kirk it up simply played tacs.
Plasma is not the only dmg to be done with beams...it is an obvious one.
Think outside the box.
The highest dps I've seen in game for enc dps was a friend of mine running the JemXII set with polaron in a Jem dred. He regularly runs 19k dps and ive seen him with doff buffs run 21.5k enc dps (yes pets are in there too but holy F*** 21.5k!!). I also have another friend who runs 17k in his t5 fleet assault with antiproton stacking crit.
The trick is usually stacking a certain stat, and plasma is not the only way to do it. Keep your power as high as possible and beams will tear stuff up.
I run 10-13k in my cstore assault with mkX jem set and very medium gear.
lol? I know ignorance is bliss. but being inferior is happiness too?
beams are fine, but as long as DHCscorts can outDPS and outTank a cruiser or sci, while they have nearly no added value, beams will stay broken as they are.
Roll with my fleet man. Watch stormy in her sci ship make tacs in escorts look like 3 year olds holding a stick poking a bear.
good scis and engs just roll a tac, and go back to sci and eng to make fun builds, that are performing like mediocre tacs in escorts can.
and you still do not understand, that the problem is not the dps, but everything else. there is no point in sci pve, as there is nothing to sci (even pvp is questionable). tanking can be useful, but a good tac in an esscort will have more than enough tanking for anything but multiple 30k hits (which cruisers would not survive anyhow).
so having no power on beams that would give any consistant burst like DHCs have, is not too much. since escorts can tank with dhcs, why cant cruisers and scis with beams dps?
I am not the one who made tacs and escorts be good at most of the things, I just ask for making the rest of the classes comparable to them (and I am not crying to nerf tacs, so noone can actually hold that against me).
I will outDPS most tacs in a sci ship (not only the vesta mind you), with a sci or an eng, but that wont change the fact that I have less tools on my hands, especially when it comes to beams (yeah I am still on topic)
If you roll against a premade pvp team and dont have at least 2 sci's with you, your tacs can hammer away at them all day and you wont even see their shields budge let alone get through to their hulls. If anything its engineers that lack a role in pvp. Their innate abilities are the most useless other than to buff the tacs (ever throw eps on a tac before he alpha strikes? ROFL)
And dont bring up 1 on 1. PVP in this game is about a team of 5 vs a team of 5. I have never seen an effective all tac team. I have seen some deadly all sci teams that will make you want to put your fist through your monitor in rage.
good scis and engs just roll a tac, and go back to sci and eng to make fun builds, that are performing like mediocre tacs in escorts can.
and you still do not understand, that the problem is not the dps, but everything else. there is no point in sci pve, as there is nothing to sci (even pvp is questionable). tanking can be useful, but a good tac in an esscort will have more than enough tanking for anything but multiple 30k hits (which cruisers would not survive anyhow).
so having no power on beams that would give any consistant burst like DHCs have, is not too much. since escorts can tank with dhcs, why cant cruisers and scis with beams dps?
I am not the one who made tacs and escorts be good at most of the things, I just ask for making the rest of the classes comparable to them (and I am not crying to nerf tacs, so noone can actually hold that against me).
I will outDPS most tacs in a sci ship (not only the vesta mind you), with a sci or an eng, but that wont change the fact that I have less tools on my hands, especially when it comes to beams (yeah I am still on topic)
I play my engineer/cruiser, USS ORCA/Martin Brody, daily. Not only do I have a lot of fun and feel like a major contributor to elite content, I also can and do survive multiple 30k hits. Every time I see someone say escorts can tank I laugh. Tanking implies the desire to hold agro. So I call BS. Escorts try to survive agro, and generally do everything in their prowess to avoid it(aka threat reducing consoles).
Escorts cannot sustain continuous heavy damage like the kind dealt out by Gates and Tac Cubes. Team focus fire might let them survive til the target is dead, but alone, they are dust in the wind.
If you roll against a premade pvp team and dont have at least 2 sci's with you, your tacs can hammer away at them all day and you wont even see their shields budge let alone get through to their hulls. If anything its engineers that lack a role in pvp. Their innate abilities are the most useless other than to buff the tacs (ever throw eps on a tac before he alpha strikes? ROFL)
And dont bring up 1 on 1. PVP in this game is about a team of 5 vs a team of 5. I have never seen an effective all tac team. I have seen some deadly all sci teams that will make you want to put your fist through your monitor in rage.
pvp is pvp. it is imbalanced as it is, but I was talking about beams mostly when pvp came to mind (though I am the only one trying to keep on), not tacs end engs and scis. tacs are the best by far for pve as they are dps based, and escorts with their tanking and capability of dps just make this better. if escorts were squishier engs and scis would have more reason to roll those chars into an escort, while cruisers and sci ships would have more meaning in a battle, where they can survive
If you can do more damage than 'most tacs', who cares about 'how many tools' you have at your disposal?
just because I can go faster in my Volkswagen while being uncomfortable, does not mean I dont want someone else's Ferrari, which under my control would be even faster, and would be even more comfortable. I can continue that analogy for a long way, but the point of mine should be clear. the problem is, that no matter how hard I try a tac and DHC will always have a better chance at doing things more efficiently than a sci or eng with beams, while the ships that support dhcs can tank pretty much to the same level as ships that are supposed to do that.
If the grass is sooooo much greener, then do it already.
Your other characters don't evaporate if you change your mind.
In your opinion a tac escort brings everything you want, how you want it. That sounds like a match made in heaven.
That does not mean the others are broken. That means you don't like them. I don't mean "I like engineering, so I like my engineer." If you really don't like how the class handles, you don't like it. Play what you like.
Other people, who like different things, are doing plenty fine with the tools they have at their disposal.
I'm not saying balance is perfect, it never is and never will be, but to toss ones hands up and proclaim that its all broken because you don't know how to make it work, or don't like how one aspect you aren't forced to contend with does... All I can say is your view is both narrow and self important.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Edit: To me a much more pressing balance concern is the fact that the romulan threat consoles make every sci console other then the field generator a piece of vendor junk. Kinda late for a nerf, but they should have had less of their sci stat, so that you had to choose between a romulan console or a straight up sci console.
I used to think this as well, but after trying out a plasma -TH on my escort and still managing to always end up with aggro I'm not sure they're even working.
just because I can go faster in my Volkswagen while being uncomfortable, does not mean I dont want someone else's Ferrari, which under my control would be even faster, and would be even more comfortable. I can continue that analogy for a long way, but the point of mine should be clear. the problem is, that no matter how hard I try a tac and DHC will always have a better chance at doing things more efficiently than a sci or eng with beams, while the ships that support dhcs can tank pretty much to the same level as ships that are supposed to do that.
Your point is entirely clear, as it has been, your analogy just makes it (IMO) even more silly. If you want to go fast, why are you in a Volkswagen in the first place? Why is the fact that you've chosen the wrong car for your preferences reason to change the Volkswagen into something its not? If you don't like what the Volkswagen brings to the table, don't buy it.
Ultimately, your argument seems to boil down to "I want to have what that guy has, not what I have". I feel bound to remind you of the old saying "the grass is always greener...", but ultimately, if you want the advantages of a DHC tac/escort, then freaking play that. Otherwise, what you are saying is "I like the affordability, dependability, and utility of my car, but I ALSO think I should have the speed and performance of a Ferrari, because all that really matters to me is raw speed".
Your point is entirely clear, as it has been, your analogy just makes it (IMO) even more silly. If you want to go fast, why are you in a Volkswagen in the first place? Why is the fact that you've chosen the wrong car for your preferences reason to change the Volkswagen into something its not? If you don't like what the Volkswagen brings to the table, don't buy it.
because in a videogame world which we are talking about, balance would indicate that VW should be better at speed or comfort (or atleast do both at a certain level), while Ferrari would be fast, while uncomfortable. but as it has both, this is an issue
Ultimately, your argument seems to boil down to "I want to have what that guy has, not what I have". I feel bound to remind you of the old saying "the grass is always greener...", but ultimately, if you want the advantages of a DHC tac/escort, then freaking play that. Otherwise, what you are saying is "I like the affordability, dependability, and utility of my car, but I ALSO think I should have the speed and performance of a Ferrari, because all that really matters to me is raw speed".
I am not saying I want to have what they have, instead of what I have. I want to have what they have, while they also have what I have, so basically they got everything. and that is a problem with the game design, as there are minor differences, which are just simply not reinforced by current pve content, nor is it being fixed.
this whole thing started, because I stated that beams are inferior to DHCs, and others jumped on my comments relating to why they are inferior, instead of trying to prove why they are not, reinforcing the fact that they are (and according to this "conversation" it is fine that they are inferior, because... I dunno, the grand spaghetti monster likes it this way, so shall we)
because in a videogame world which we are talking about, balance would indicate that VW should be better at speed or comfort (or atleast do both at a certain level), while Ferrari would be fast, while uncomfortable. but as it has both, this is an issue
To draw the connection back to STO, what you are saying is "I feel like my (not tac/escort) isn't good enough at tanking/control to justify its lack of damage, while the tac/escort has all the tanking/control I want, and oodles of damage".
What I and others are saying is if you feel that way, that's fine. Run a tac/escort then. I personally think that Eng/Cruisers for example DO tank way better than any escort can, and I think Sci/Sci has tons more control to offer. I think that there are many combos that offer better team support than a pure dps Tac/escort, and I further think those play styles are fun in their own right, and don't need to be delivering as much dps (or even 'nearly as much dps') as a tac/scort in order to be fun or useful.
The same logic applies to beams versus DHC as well - if you feel like beams don't work for you, then switch to using something that does.
To draw the connection back to STO, what you are saying is "I feel like my (not tac/escort) isn't good enough at tanking/control to justify its lack of damage, while the tac/escort has all the tanking/control I want, and oodles of damage".
What I and others are saying is if you feel that way, that's fine. Run a tac/escort then. I personally think that Eng/Cruisers for example DO tank way better than any escort can, and I think Sci/Sci has tons more control to offer. I think that there are many combos that offer better team support than a pure dps Tac/escort, and I further think those play styles are fun in their own right, and don't need to be delivering as much dps (or even 'nearly as much dps') as a tac/scort in order to be fun or useful.
The same logic applies to beams versus DHC as well - if you feel like beams don't work for you, then switch to using something that does.
The problem is not that cruisers make for better tanks than escorts, because a cruiser really can tank better than an escort. The problem is that cruiser tanking is not needed because escorts tank well enough to meet the requirements of the content. The level of tankiness that the cruiser has over the escort is superfluous.
The simple fact remains that Cryptic has absolutely no motivation to fix the fundamental design flaws in this game as long as their revenue expectations continue to be met by players rabidly buying Master Keys to add the latest ship to their personal ship collections.
The problem is not that cruisers make for better tanks than escorts, because a cruiser really can tank better than an escort. The problem is that cruiser tanking is not needed because escorts tank well enough to meet the requirements of the content. The level of tankiness that the cruiser has over the escort is superfluous.
The other half of this problem is one of player perception. Escorts make for better DPS, however Cruisers DPS well enough that Escort's DPS is superflous. In all of the STF's where DPS 'matters' (Minefield, SB24, Scout Force) my MkXI Phaser beam array (crafted!) Excelsior Retrofit tends to come in second place.
I do try to get first place (And did recently, with 2 escorts there too) but I am not dissatisfied by placing second. Especially since while I could place first more often in my Defiant Retrofit, the escort playstyle bores me.
If the grass is sooooo much greener, then do it already.
Your other characters don't evaporate if you change your mind.
In your opinion a tac escort brings everything you want, how you want it. That sounds like a match made in heaven.
That does not mean the others are broken. That means you don't like them. I don't mean "I like engineering, so I like my engineer." If you really don't like how the class handles, you don't like it. Play what you like.
Other people, who like different things, are doing plenty fine with the tools they have at their disposal.
I'm not saying balance is perfect, it never is and never will be, but to toss ones hands up and proclaim that its all broken because you don't know how to make it work, or don't like how one aspect you aren't forced to contend with does... All I can say is your view is both narrow and self important.
That's a straw man and logical fallacy argument. The very notion that you suggested this shows the weakness of your argument that the balance is just fine the way it is and that nothing can be done to change it so why even try right? it's only a paid form of entertainment that players have put money into enjoying that's been manipulated for the possible purpose of keeping profits coming in or for the purpose of saving the once diverse pvp setup with the prospects of giving the players who choose the devs favorite captain types the benefit of instakills.
It's neither correct or right but it's popular and sometimes the popular thing to do seems to be the most profitable and develops normally objective people into extreme supporters.
If balance existed they way it did pre F2P where the other two captain types and beams were working as intended by canon then there would be far fewer legitimate complaints and a very diverse system of builds instead of the pidgeonholing we see now.
No we won't be quiet because not only are engineers and scientist captains not useless they were also essential to the Star Trek ip. Despite most of the TOS shows, ST was essentially about diplomacy/defense/advancement/discovery and making the other two captain archtypes and other ship archtypes work properly again will push this game closer to the REAL IP.
The problem is not that cruisers make for better tanks than escorts, because a cruiser really can tank better than an escort. The problem is that cruiser tanking is not needed because escorts tank well enough to meet the requirements of the content. The level of tankiness that the cruiser has over the escort is superfluous.
The simple fact remains that Cryptic has absolutely no motivation to fix the fundamental design flaws in this game as long as their revenue expectations continue to be met by players rabidly buying Master Keys to add the latest ship to their personal ship collections.
What I don't understand is why you can say that escort tank "enough", and that more tanking isn't an advantage, but the fact that sci ships and cruisers can only do "enough" DPS to finish any mission in the game (with optionals) is somehow a huge disadvantage to them versus escorts. Both damage and tanking make a mission easier to complete, so why is more of one an advantage, but the other not? If your answer is related to mission completion time, that's fine, if you feel like STO is a competition and being first across the finish line is a "win". That feeling, however, is not universal, and isn't justification for anything other than you switching to play the ship/class that is designed for the role you value.
Put another way, if you feel like the problem is that only damage is really "rewarded" by the game, then that's a mission design problem, not a ship design issue, since really, the ships by and large operate as advertised.
If you feel the problem is that tac/escorts are more fun because you don't enjoy other play styles (typically because they are slower at completing missions), then that is not a problem at all, in my opinion, because you can simply choose to use the play style you enjoy more.
If the problem is that you want for whatever reason to use a play style that you like with a ship/class that is not designed to play that way, and you feel like it is too hard to do so, well, to me that sounds like you are asking to have the best of all worlds without having to give something up, and I have little sympathy for that.
If the purpose of this thread is establish that beam dps is inferior to cannon dps than yes you are correct it is. Beam dps deprecates a lot faster with the energy drain of weapons fire versus Cannon dps which can sustain the weapons drain and not have its dps drop off so dramatically.
BUT Beam Arrays always have wider firing arcs than cannons do. Which means a captain using Beam Arrays can focus their primary weapons on a fast moving target better than a cannon captain can. Not to mention if a beam captain has beam arrays on both the front and back of their ship that means every enemy withing a 360' radius is getting hit with at least one beam during a FAW activation. A cannon's scatter volley doesn't even extend to 250' degrees.
If beam damage was made to be on par with cannon damage then cannons would be completely useless because beams firing arcs would make it more useful.
The other half of this problem is one of player perception. Escorts make for better DPS, however Cruisers DPS well enough that Escort's DPS is superflous. In all of the STF's where DPS 'matters' (Minefield, SB24, Scout Force) my MkXI Phaser beam array (crafted!) Excelsior Retrofit tends to come in second place.
I do try to get first place (And did recently, with 2 escorts there too) but I am not dissatisfied by placing second. Especially since while I could place first more often in my Defiant Retrofit, the escort playstyle bores me.
DPS is never superfluous because it kills things faster. I would have thought that would be obvious to anyone who has ever actually played not only this game but any MMO.
What I don't understand is why you can say that escort tank "enough", and that more tanking isn't an advantage, but the fact that sci ships and cruisers can only do "enough" DPS to finish any mission in the game (with optionals) is somehow a huge disadvantage to them versus escorts. Both damage and tanking make a mission easier to complete, so why is more of one an advantage, but the other not?
You don't need to tank against an enemy that is dead.
Beams have bigger problems like the big power drain, FAW is in poor state and the beam accuracy is a joke even with accx3 you miss escorts half the time in pvp that I think effects dmg also !
The problem is not that cruisers make for better tanks than escorts, because a cruiser really can tank better than an escort. The problem is that cruiser tanking is not needed because escorts tank well enough to meet the requirements of the content. The level of tankiness that the cruiser has over the escort is superfluous.
The true beauty of it is that if a player truly feels that way no one is forcing them to pilot a cruiser. In fact, the way cruisers and sci vessels add benefits without being required is one of the ship class system's greatest strengths. I don't want to begin to imagine how DUMB it would feel if we had a hard trinity... IN SPACE.
If balance existed they way it did pre F2P where the other two captain types and beams were working as intended by canon then there would be far fewer legitimate complaints and a very diverse system of builds instead of the pidgeonholing we see now.
See? You write things like this and its you that's shown to be clueless. Balanced pre-F2P? What game were you playing?
DPS is never superfluous because it kills things faster. I would have thought that would be obvious to anyone who has ever actually played not only this game but any MMO.
You don't need to tank against an enemy that is dead.
Let me put this a different way - you seem to feel like there is no reason to fly anything but an escort right now, because an all-escort team can do anything in the game.
What other people are saying is that holds true for ANY class - you don't NEED anything in the game, at all, because all class and ship combinations are capable of finishing any mission in the game.
Your response is that all escort teams are better because they finish missions faster, and thus cruisers and sci ships are "useless" by comparison. My counter to that is as follows:
1) It is simply not true that "faster" is automatically "better". This is merely an opinion, and I think stems from a wrong-headed belief that says there needs to be an objective way to measure performance in order to evaluate what build is the most fun. I reject that notion, and argue that fun is always subjective, and that it is entirely possible to have a short, successful mission that is no fun, as well as a long, unsuccessful mission that is still tons of fun. Thus, while "faster" is, indeed, a possible criteria to measure with, it is not the only one, and should not be privileged.
2) Tanking and Sci game play as they stand now are currently fun for at least a subset of people, which provides reason enough to play them. They don't have to be equally fun for all players, they just have to provide entertainment value to the players who enjoy those slower play styles. If you personally don't like that style, play one you do. If you feel like the support play style is less popular overall, you are probably right, but since there is no "need" for any one class to help complete a mission, why does that matter? Let people play what they like, and don't hold anyone but yourself to your own standards of what a properly "fun" build is. If that means you only want to play with escorts, fine.
3) "Escorts Online" is not really a thing, and even if it was, why is that a problem? I mean, even with things as "unbalanced" as they are right now, I still see plenty of non-escorts, so I doubt we'll ever be in a situation where there are only tac/escorts in the game, because some people simply find the other ships and classes more fun. Even if there were only tac/escorts, though, why is that bad, as long as players are having fun?
If the game can make money catering only to the tac/escort crowd, and that style is "fun" enough for everyone, that seems fine to me.
4) Even if the majority of players primarily value finishing missions faster, and hate the slower support game play, and even if that means that non-escorts are useless, all that means is no matter how you balance the game, one combination is going to be optimal for the majority of players, and all other combos will be "useless". All that changing the balance of the classes is going to accomplish is make something else the best at dealing damage, and since damage is the only role performed by escorts, that means escorts don't have ANY point, as opposed to now, when Cruisers and Sci have at least some unique roles, even if you don't personally value them.
Something that I think lends credibility to the argument about beams being out of balance is that all of the beam builds I'm seeing for 10k dps require plasma. That means that no other weapon types can hit 10k because none of the rest of them have DoTs on them.
That's what I've been seeing from digging thru the shipyard threads concerning beam boat dps for both cruisers and science ships.
3:32 ISE run. Going for under 3 min tomorrow
As you can see, no plasma here...all polaron beams minus 1 tac runnin disruptors:cool:
1) It is simply not true that "faster" is automatically "better". This is merely an opinion, and I think stems from a wrong-headed belief that says there needs to be an objective way to measure performance in order to evaluate what build is the most fun. I reject that notion, and argue that fun is always subjective, and that it is entirely possible to have a short, successful mission that is no fun, as well as a long, unsuccessful mission that is still tons of fun. Thus, while "faster" is, indeed, a possible criteria to measure with, it is not the only one, and should not be privileged.
2) Tanking and Sci game play as they stand now are currently fun for at least a subset of people, which provides reason enough to play them. They don't have to be equally fun for all players, they just have to provide entertainment value to the players who enjoy those slower play styles. If you personally don't like that style, play one you do. If you feel like the support play style is less popular overall, you are probably right, but since there is no "need" for any one class to help complete a mission, why does that matter? Let people play what they like, and don't hold anyone but yourself to your own standards of what a properly "fun" build is. If that means you only want to play with escorts, fine.
3) "Escorts Online" is not really a thing, and even if it was, why is that a problem? I mean, even with things as "unbalanced" as they are right now, I still see plenty of non-escorts, so I doubt we'll ever be in a situation where there are only tac/escorts in the game, because some people simply find the other ships and classes more fun. Even if there were only tac/escorts, though, why is that bad, as long as players are having fun?
If the game can make money catering only to the tac/escort crowd, and that style is "fun" enough for everyone, that seems fine to me.
4) Even if the majority of players primarily value finishing missions faster, and hate the slower support game play, and even if that means that non-escorts are useless, all that means is no matter how you balance the game, one combination is going to be optimal for the majority of players, and all other combos will be "useless". All that changing the balance of the classes is going to accomplish is make something else the best at dealing damage, and since damage is the only role performed by escorts, that means escorts don't have ANY point, as opposed to now, when Cruisers and Sci have at least some unique roles, even if you don't personally value them.
1. faster is better in the devs eyes, hence this is how it is intended to be played. if speed was not a factor, then there would not be a timer on optional objectives ("hurr durr it is optional, so you dont have to do it", lol, dont come back at me with that, it will not only sound but will be stupid). most of the games are designed not only for high dps, but burst dps at that, making beams less useful, as they are sustained dps (at that they are good). that makes support gameplay useless, or unnecessary.
2. I wont argue, they are fun. the problem is, that their effects are minor. tanking is not necessary, and without any dps, it is totally useless, while sci... well sci powers are pretty
3. most non escorts are sub 2k dps (not that most escorts are above 4k), and rainbow odys, so lets not count those, shall we?
4. I agree, that we should not take away the damage dealing role from escorts. but when the other roles are useless (yeah, in a premade you gonna be useful with some fancy stuff, but those builds that require certain circumstances, should not matter that much in the big picture, they should, but not to a great amount), and escorts can do both other roles sufficiently, then the only thing we can do for cruisers and sci vessels is to give decent dps to them (making the beams balanced, see below)
If the purpose of this thread is establish that beam dps is inferior to cannon dps than yes you are correct it is. Beam dps deprecates a lot faster with the energy drain of weapons fire versus Cannon dps which can sustain the weapons drain and not have its dps drop off so dramatically.
BUT Beam Arrays always have wider firing arcs than cannons do. Which means a captain using Beam Arrays can focus their primary weapons on a fast moving target better than a cannon captain can. Not to mention if a beam captain has beam arrays on both the front and back of their ship that means every enemy withing a 360' radius is getting hit with at least one beam during a FAW activation. A cannon's scatter volley doesn't even extend to 250' degrees.
If beam damage was made to be on par with cannon damage then cannons would be completely useless because beams firing arcs would make it more useful.
wider firing arc does not mean necessarily better usefulness. the FAW is the best example. with CSV you gonna deal a great deal of area dmg (while having a good weapon drain), when FAW will just deal random dmg to random targets, with little control, and the only thing you will do, is get attention to yourself (which is fine, aggro is easy to hold in an escort, a cruiser or a well built sci should have an easier time). if beams had a rapid fire ability, that would be sustained, and not just make a big noise, drain all weapon power, for doing no relevant dmg at all, beams would be great. if we recieved an AoE power that could be controlled, beams would be great, and maybe OP. but without one, beams are UP compared to escorts.
and you can say, that DHCs are for dps and all that. but there are only 4 dhcs on an escort. the rest is turrets. so basically 7 weapons of an escort, 3 being by far inferior to beams, an escort will out dps a cruiser with 8 beams. and it is not only due to the power drain, but how the weapons work. if 8 beams would have the same base dmg and power drain as 7 weapons on the escort, it would still be at a loss due to the abilities the that are at the latter's disposal, and DHCs would still have their own chance of getting multiple critical hits
1. faster is better in the devs eyes, hence this is how it is intended to be played. if speed was not a factor, then there would not be a timer on optional objectives ("hurr durr it is optional, so you dont have to do it", lol, dont come back at me with that, it will not only sound but will be stupid). most of the games are designed not only for high dps, but burst dps at that, making beams less useful, as they are sustained dps (at that they are good). that makes support gameplay useless, or unnecessary.
See, this here is exactly what I am talking about. No, speed is not better, except in the binary question of 'can you get the optional' or not, and Sci ships and Cruisers can. Thus, again, there is no content they cannot do, which means spike DPS gameplay is exactly as "unnecessary" as support game play is, unless you decide that in all cases "Faster" is objectively "Better", and I don't. If you do, that's fine, but that means you should learn to play the class that does what you value, not that everything you don't value should be changed to something you do.
2. I wont argue, they are fun. the problem is, that their effects are minor. tanking is not necessary, and without any dps, it is totally useless, while sci... well sci powers are pretty
If they are fun, then this shouldn't matter, again unless you are presuming that the only thing that is worthwhile is how fast you complete an STF. I don't see any value in finishing a mission in 3 minutes as opposed to 14 minutes, so that won't persuade me. Second, I disagree entirely that the effects are 'minor', I think they are effects you just don't value as much as you value exploding enemies. Sci can offer a ton of control, and give teams a second chance after they TRIBBLE up Infected, while Cruisers can grab aggro and draw fire away from the rest of the team. Both types can also heal/support other players while doing that. None of that is minor, even if it is not causing an enemy to blow up right away.
3. most non escorts are sub 2k dps (not that most escorts are above 4k), and rainbow odys, so lets not count those, shall we?
This is non-responsive to my argument, unless you are trying to say that we should only count "good" players, and further asserting that those players are all (or even mostly) escort captains. I'm pretty sure this is one of those "I read it on the interwebz, so it must be true" kind of things that has been repeated so often on these boards people just accept it uncritically. I certainly don't feel like it matches my play experience at all.
4. I agree, that we should not take away the damage dealing role from escorts. but when the other roles are useless (yeah, in a premade you gonna be useful with some fancy stuff, but those builds that require certain circumstances, should not matter that much in the big picture, they should, but not to a great amount), and escorts can do both other roles sufficiently, then the only thing we can do for cruisers and sci vessels is to give decent dps to them (making the beams balanced, see below)
They are not useless, you just don't see the value in them, which is not a problem with the ships, but with you. Hell, it's not even really a problem at all, except insofar as you keep trying to make things do something they were never intended to do. Here's a thinker for you - if Cruisers and Sci ships have value in premades right now, what would happen to those premades if all of a sudden escort damage became less relevant? And why in your response to point 3 are we discounting the majority of players because they are too bad to count, while now here we are discounting the skilled premade players? It seems like you are trying to show that your opinion is the one that should matter more, which is why accusations of "self-importance" get levied.
wider firing arc does not mean necessarily better usefulness. the FAW is the best example. with CSV you gonna deal a great deal of area dmg (while having a good weapon drain), when FAW will just deal random dmg to random targets, with little control, and the only thing you will do, is get attention to yourself (which is fine, aggro is easy to hold in an escort, a cruiser or a well built sci should have an easier time). if beams had a rapid fire ability, that would be sustained, and not just make a big noise, drain all weapon power, for doing no relevant dmg at all, beams would be great. if we recieved an AoE power that could be controlled, beams would be great, and maybe OP. but without one, beams are UP compared to escorts.
and you can say, that DHCs are for dps and all that. but there are only 4 dhcs on an escort. the rest is turrets. so basically 7 weapons of an escort, 3 being by far inferior to beams, an escort will out dps a cruiser with 8 beams. and it is not only due to the power drain, but how the weapons work. if 8 beams would have the same base dmg and power drain as 7 weapons on the escort, it would still be at a loss due to the abilities the that are at the latter's disposal, and DHCs would still have their own chance of getting multiple critical hits
LOL. So beam balance means Cruisers do the same amount of base damage, but with wider arcs, while escorts get more Tac buffs and the inherent crit severity bonus of DHC? Right. At this point, I should probably advise you that on my escort, I actually don't use cannons at all, just beams and torps, and they do fine - I don't miss cannons DPS-wise. So, maybe we're already basically where you want to be?
Also, if you think beams can't do spike damage, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Beam Overload, which routinely hits for 20K dmg a pop, with 60-70k hits on a crit. Downside is the drain, of course. If only escorts could use more Emergency power skills, batteries, and even EPS consoles to regen that power loss quickly...
Oh, and FAW is great, if you actually think to use it when you want to clear out spam, or when you can isolate targets so that your extra shots go all to the same place. Or if you want to grab aggro from a bunch of stuff to tank it for your team, even.
I've been parsing like mad, and I have some interesting results.
I'm routinely out DPSing my plasma build with the exact same build with other energy types. With poorer gear.
By about 200-500 DPS on average with AP. A little more with my Polarized Disruptors.
This is while still using +plasma consoles. Exact same build but going down to blue mk xi tac consoles and in the case of the AP beams mk xi borg beams... (And yes, I wasn't just parsing against borg)
Further testing is required, but I'm thinking the nature of +plasma consoles maybe causing me more plasma procs, which however unlikely may be doing it. I didn't think of what might be causing it till this morning, so I will have to gather more data and see if that is the cause.
It would seems that plasma is not the end all, even in a sci ship that can really exploit those consoles. They might end up being a stronger benefit for other weapon types, by adding multiple procs.
This also helps explain some of my Kumari weirdness. Common wisdom was that the wing cannon platforms were "bad" and the cannon was "bad," so I put together a romulan plasma set for her and my DPS went down. I had first just assumed it was other people being bad at math, because when I re-parsed my Kumari the wing cannon platforms were like 8-9% of my DPS so I just assumed that was the difference. If I ever get done with all these beam tests I might have to go back and see what the difference is between just the plasma and phasers.
Edit: And if they really did manage to get those +plasma consoles balanced so well that you are getting roughly equal damage rather you add the raw boost or take it as an extra proc... Color me impressed. It solves the "Plasma is absolute junk in PvP because of end game shields" dilemma without making Plasma the only answer. It also boosts sci damage a bit, which is probably a good thing as sci carriers kinda whip the snot out of sci ships... IMO... Don't burn me at the stake I'm not trying to be a jerk =P
With beams anyway, who knows how they interact with other weapons... that's some parsing for another day...
Edit2: I finally lost damage, with phased polarons, but only like 200-300. I find it funny that all of these variances could easily be statistical noise...
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Hey, beam gods, what are you guys doing for single target DPS? I'm a dismal failure. Is it just beams are not quite as good single target?
Edit: I should define dismal failure, I'm still beating your average pug, but my torp build just rips things up single target. Like, I do damn near as much damage in an AE situation with my single target torp build going after one at a time as I can get blasting AE thru the same situation. Of course, this requires aiming an Atrox... Am I just expecting too much from the beams single target?
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
1. [...] most of the games are designed not only for high dps, but burst dps at that, making beams less useful, as they are sustained dps (at that they are good). that makes support gameplay useless, or unnecessary.
Back before F2P when the Borg STF's weren't nerfed, Khitomer's Gates could only be attacked about every 10-20 seconds out of 1-2 minutes, much like the Doomsday weapon. Only you don't have the crazy Harg-Peng damage bonus and you had to deal with whatever it spat out back then as well (Probes, Probes & Spheres or A Cube.) You don't know STO Burst DPS until you've had to deal with that. The Game has become far more Sustained DPS friendly than it was then.
wider firing arc does not mean necessarily better usefulness. the FAW is the best example. with CSV you gonna deal a great deal of area dmg (while having a good weapon drain), when FAW will just deal random dmg to random targets, with little control, and the only thing you will do, is get attention to yourself (which is fine, aggro is easy to hold in an escort, a cruiser or a well built sci should have an easier time). if beams had a rapid fire ability, that would be sustained, and not just make a big noise, drain all weapon power, for doing no relevant dmg at all, beams would be great. if we recieved an AoE power that could be controlled, beams would be great, and maybe OP. but without one, beams are UP compared to escorts.
Against the same number of valid targets, with the same additional buffs, the ONLY reason Scatter Volley does more damage is because DHC's do that much more damage than beams. However Fire At Will gets better the more targets there are while Scatter Volley is restricted to a Cone. It's a playstyle/skill difference between the two abilities.
Escorts have the BOFF layout to stack both single target and AoE abilities plus being able to cycle one of them. Cruisers have the BOFF layout to slip in an Epower to Weapons or 2, which mitigates Beam power drain somewhat. (I am ignoring Aux to Bat setups as that includes DOFFS)
As for your weapon numbers you forgot to subtract the Torpedo but are otherwise correct for the same BOFF layout reason.
Hey, beam gods, what are you guys doing for single target DPS? I'm a dismal failure. Is it just beams are not quite as good single target?
Yes to the second question, Rapid Fire benefits cannons more than Fire at Will/Beam Overload benefits beams. IE Rapid Fire adds more damage than Fire at Will and it benefits all your Cannon's rather than the 1 Beam Array that Beam Overload is restricted to. Beam Power drain also means that an unbuffed 3x Dual Beam Bank setup vs. a 3x Dual Heavy Cannon setup will see the beams lose out. (Plus they lack synergy with rear weapons.)
Comments
good scis and engs just roll a tac, and go back to sci and eng to make fun builds, that are performing like mediocre tacs in escorts can.
and you still do not understand, that the problem is not the dps, but everything else. there is no point in sci pve, as there is nothing to sci (even pvp is questionable). tanking can be useful, but a good tac in an esscort will have more than enough tanking for anything but multiple 30k hits (which cruisers would not survive anyhow).
so having no power on beams that would give any consistant burst like DHCs have, is not too much. since escorts can tank with dhcs, why cant cruisers and scis with beams dps?
I am not the one who made tacs and escorts be good at most of the things, I just ask for making the rest of the classes comparable to them (and I am not crying to nerf tacs, so noone can actually hold that against me).
I will outDPS most tacs in a sci ship (not only the vesta mind you), with a sci or an eng, but that wont change the fact that I have less tools on my hands, especially when it comes to beams (yeah I am still on topic)
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
You play what you like, I'll play what I like, I suppose.
I used to have tac envy. I was a suck TRIBBLE sci.
I rolled a tac, had some fun. Learned a lot.
I haven't played my tac in ages. I learned how to sci.
I can tac all day long if that were my thing.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
I agree. In the end it doesn't really matter what your dps is, its whether or not you had fun.
If you can do more damage than 'most tacs', who cares about 'how many tools' you have at your disposal? If you want a damage dealing Sci/Eng build, use those limited tools then, just like a 'tanking' tac/escort has to use a pretty limited build to achieve it's tanking ability. I don't buy that there needs to be 'more variety' in damage dealing options, because that seems to assume that there are no other valid goals to build towards. In other words, I'm not sure why 3 different ways to do the same DPS is 'better' variety than 3 different ways to support a team in a mission, even at the cost of some raw dps.
I'm not even going to get into the value in PVE and PVP of what Eng/Sci bring to the table, because if you don't find those game play styles rewarding, no amount of internet argument will change your opinion. Suffice to say, though, if you don't think there is enough value in those abilities to make them feel 'useful' in a team setting, then don't play them. This game would be much better off if only the people with the temperament for playing team support players would actually play those classes, and everyone who wanted to kirk it up simply played tacs.
Plasma is not the only dmg to be done with beams...it is an obvious one.
Think outside the box.
The highest dps I've seen in game for enc dps was a friend of mine running the JemXII set with polaron in a Jem dred. He regularly runs 19k dps and ive seen him with doff buffs run 21.5k enc dps (yes pets are in there too but holy F*** 21.5k!!). I also have another friend who runs 17k in his t5 fleet assault with antiproton stacking crit.
The trick is usually stacking a certain stat, and plasma is not the only way to do it. Keep your power as high as possible and beams will tear stuff up.
I run 10-13k in my cstore assault with mkX jem set and very medium gear.
Roll with my fleet man. Watch stormy in her sci ship make tacs in escorts look like 3 year olds holding a stick poking a bear.
[SIGPIC]http://file3.guildlaunch.net/205090/DVhexishensig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
Cruisers with mk x common in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q82PqoFFxjc
Cruisers with good gear in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMnFljZD9m8
Soloing Infected Elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEFICFx4E8&feature=youtu.be
If you roll against a premade pvp team and dont have at least 2 sci's with you, your tacs can hammer away at them all day and you wont even see their shields budge let alone get through to their hulls. If anything its engineers that lack a role in pvp. Their innate abilities are the most useless other than to buff the tacs (ever throw eps on a tac before he alpha strikes? ROFL)
And dont bring up 1 on 1. PVP in this game is about a team of 5 vs a team of 5. I have never seen an effective all tac team. I have seen some deadly all sci teams that will make you want to put your fist through your monitor in rage.
[SIGPIC]http://file3.guildlaunch.net/205090/DVhexishensig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
Cruisers with mk x common in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q82PqoFFxjc
Cruisers with good gear in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMnFljZD9m8
Soloing Infected Elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEFICFx4E8&feature=youtu.be
I play my engineer/cruiser, USS ORCA/Martin Brody, daily. Not only do I have a lot of fun and feel like a major contributor to elite content, I also can and do survive multiple 30k hits. Every time I see someone say escorts can tank I laugh. Tanking implies the desire to hold agro. So I call BS. Escorts try to survive agro, and generally do everything in their prowess to avoid it(aka threat reducing consoles).
Escorts cannot sustain continuous heavy damage like the kind dealt out by Gates and Tac Cubes. Team focus fire might let them survive til the target is dead, but alone, they are dust in the wind.
since most tacs are like that, I cant argue with that
pvp is pvp. it is imbalanced as it is, but I was talking about beams mostly when pvp came to mind (though I am the only one trying to keep on), not tacs end engs and scis. tacs are the best by far for pve as they are dps based, and escorts with their tanking and capability of dps just make this better. if escorts were squishier engs and scis would have more reason to roll those chars into an escort, while cruisers and sci ships would have more meaning in a battle, where they can survive
just because I can go faster in my Volkswagen while being uncomfortable, does not mean I dont want someone else's Ferrari, which under my control would be even faster, and would be even more comfortable. I can continue that analogy for a long way, but the point of mine should be clear. the problem is, that no matter how hard I try a tac and DHC will always have a better chance at doing things more efficiently than a sci or eng with beams, while the ships that support dhcs can tank pretty much to the same level as ships that are supposed to do that.
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
If the grass is sooooo much greener, then do it already.
Your other characters don't evaporate if you change your mind.
In your opinion a tac escort brings everything you want, how you want it. That sounds like a match made in heaven.
That does not mean the others are broken. That means you don't like them. I don't mean "I like engineering, so I like my engineer." If you really don't like how the class handles, you don't like it. Play what you like.
Other people, who like different things, are doing plenty fine with the tools they have at their disposal.
I'm not saying balance is perfect, it never is and never will be, but to toss ones hands up and proclaim that its all broken because you don't know how to make it work, or don't like how one aspect you aren't forced to contend with does... All I can say is your view is both narrow and self important.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
I used to think this as well, but after trying out a plasma -TH on my escort and still managing to always end up with aggro I'm not sure they're even working.
Your point is entirely clear, as it has been, your analogy just makes it (IMO) even more silly. If you want to go fast, why are you in a Volkswagen in the first place? Why is the fact that you've chosen the wrong car for your preferences reason to change the Volkswagen into something its not? If you don't like what the Volkswagen brings to the table, don't buy it.
Ultimately, your argument seems to boil down to "I want to have what that guy has, not what I have". I feel bound to remind you of the old saying "the grass is always greener...", but ultimately, if you want the advantages of a DHC tac/escort, then freaking play that. Otherwise, what you are saying is "I like the affordability, dependability, and utility of my car, but I ALSO think I should have the speed and performance of a Ferrari, because all that really matters to me is raw speed".
I am not saying I want to have what they have, instead of what I have. I want to have what they have, while they also have what I have, so basically they got everything. and that is a problem with the game design, as there are minor differences, which are just simply not reinforced by current pve content, nor is it being fixed.
this whole thing started, because I stated that beams are inferior to DHCs, and others jumped on my comments relating to why they are inferior, instead of trying to prove why they are not, reinforcing the fact that they are (and according to this "conversation" it is fine that they are inferior, because... I dunno, the grand spaghetti monster likes it this way, so shall we)
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
To draw the connection back to STO, what you are saying is "I feel like my (not tac/escort) isn't good enough at tanking/control to justify its lack of damage, while the tac/escort has all the tanking/control I want, and oodles of damage".
What I and others are saying is if you feel that way, that's fine. Run a tac/escort then. I personally think that Eng/Cruisers for example DO tank way better than any escort can, and I think Sci/Sci has tons more control to offer. I think that there are many combos that offer better team support than a pure dps Tac/escort, and I further think those play styles are fun in their own right, and don't need to be delivering as much dps (or even 'nearly as much dps') as a tac/scort in order to be fun or useful.
The same logic applies to beams versus DHC as well - if you feel like beams don't work for you, then switch to using something that does.
The simple fact remains that Cryptic has absolutely no motivation to fix the fundamental design flaws in this game as long as their revenue expectations continue to be met by players rabidly buying Master Keys to add the latest ship to their personal ship collections.
The other half of this problem is one of player perception. Escorts make for better DPS, however Cruisers DPS well enough that Escort's DPS is superflous. In all of the STF's where DPS 'matters' (Minefield, SB24, Scout Force) my MkXI Phaser beam array (crafted!) Excelsior Retrofit tends to come in second place.
I do try to get first place (And did recently, with 2 escorts there too) but I am not dissatisfied by placing second. Especially since while I could place first more often in my Defiant Retrofit, the escort playstyle bores me.
That's a straw man and logical fallacy argument. The very notion that you suggested this shows the weakness of your argument that the balance is just fine the way it is and that nothing can be done to change it so why even try right? it's only a paid form of entertainment that players have put money into enjoying that's been manipulated for the possible purpose of keeping profits coming in or for the purpose of saving the once diverse pvp setup with the prospects of giving the players who choose the devs favorite captain types the benefit of instakills.
It's neither correct or right but it's popular and sometimes the popular thing to do seems to be the most profitable and develops normally objective people into extreme supporters.
If balance existed they way it did pre F2P where the other two captain types and beams were working as intended by canon then there would be far fewer legitimate complaints and a very diverse system of builds instead of the pidgeonholing we see now.
No we won't be quiet because not only are engineers and scientist captains not useless they were also essential to the Star Trek ip. Despite most of the TOS shows, ST was essentially about diplomacy/defense/advancement/discovery and making the other two captain archtypes and other ship archtypes work properly again will push this game closer to the REAL IP.
What I don't understand is why you can say that escort tank "enough", and that more tanking isn't an advantage, but the fact that sci ships and cruisers can only do "enough" DPS to finish any mission in the game (with optionals) is somehow a huge disadvantage to them versus escorts. Both damage and tanking make a mission easier to complete, so why is more of one an advantage, but the other not? If your answer is related to mission completion time, that's fine, if you feel like STO is a competition and being first across the finish line is a "win". That feeling, however, is not universal, and isn't justification for anything other than you switching to play the ship/class that is designed for the role you value.
Put another way, if you feel like the problem is that only damage is really "rewarded" by the game, then that's a mission design problem, not a ship design issue, since really, the ships by and large operate as advertised.
If you feel the problem is that tac/escorts are more fun because you don't enjoy other play styles (typically because they are slower at completing missions), then that is not a problem at all, in my opinion, because you can simply choose to use the play style you enjoy more.
If the problem is that you want for whatever reason to use a play style that you like with a ship/class that is not designed to play that way, and you feel like it is too hard to do so, well, to me that sounds like you are asking to have the best of all worlds without having to give something up, and I have little sympathy for that.
BUT Beam Arrays always have wider firing arcs than cannons do. Which means a captain using Beam Arrays can focus their primary weapons on a fast moving target better than a cannon captain can. Not to mention if a beam captain has beam arrays on both the front and back of their ship that means every enemy withing a 360' radius is getting hit with at least one beam during a FAW activation. A cannon's scatter volley doesn't even extend to 250' degrees.
If beam damage was made to be on par with cannon damage then cannons would be completely useless because beams firing arcs would make it more useful.
The true beauty of it is that if a player truly feels that way no one is forcing them to pilot a cruiser. In fact, the way cruisers and sci vessels add benefits without being required is one of the ship class system's greatest strengths. I don't want to begin to imagine how DUMB it would feel if we had a hard trinity... IN SPACE.
See? You write things like this and its you that's shown to be clueless. Balanced pre-F2P? What game were you playing?
Let me put this a different way - you seem to feel like there is no reason to fly anything but an escort right now, because an all-escort team can do anything in the game.
What other people are saying is that holds true for ANY class - you don't NEED anything in the game, at all, because all class and ship combinations are capable of finishing any mission in the game.
Your response is that all escort teams are better because they finish missions faster, and thus cruisers and sci ships are "useless" by comparison. My counter to that is as follows:
1) It is simply not true that "faster" is automatically "better". This is merely an opinion, and I think stems from a wrong-headed belief that says there needs to be an objective way to measure performance in order to evaluate what build is the most fun. I reject that notion, and argue that fun is always subjective, and that it is entirely possible to have a short, successful mission that is no fun, as well as a long, unsuccessful mission that is still tons of fun. Thus, while "faster" is, indeed, a possible criteria to measure with, it is not the only one, and should not be privileged.
2) Tanking and Sci game play as they stand now are currently fun for at least a subset of people, which provides reason enough to play them. They don't have to be equally fun for all players, they just have to provide entertainment value to the players who enjoy those slower play styles. If you personally don't like that style, play one you do. If you feel like the support play style is less popular overall, you are probably right, but since there is no "need" for any one class to help complete a mission, why does that matter? Let people play what they like, and don't hold anyone but yourself to your own standards of what a properly "fun" build is. If that means you only want to play with escorts, fine.
3) "Escorts Online" is not really a thing, and even if it was, why is that a problem? I mean, even with things as "unbalanced" as they are right now, I still see plenty of non-escorts, so I doubt we'll ever be in a situation where there are only tac/escorts in the game, because some people simply find the other ships and classes more fun. Even if there were only tac/escorts, though, why is that bad, as long as players are having fun?
If the game can make money catering only to the tac/escort crowd, and that style is "fun" enough for everyone, that seems fine to me.
4) Even if the majority of players primarily value finishing missions faster, and hate the slower support game play, and even if that means that non-escorts are useless, all that means is no matter how you balance the game, one combination is going to be optimal for the majority of players, and all other combos will be "useless". All that changing the balance of the classes is going to accomplish is make something else the best at dealing damage, and since damage is the only role performed by escorts, that means escorts don't have ANY point, as opposed to now, when Cruisers and Sci have at least some unique roles, even if you don't personally value them.
3:32 ISE run. Going for under 3 min tomorrow
As you can see, no plasma here...all polaron beams minus 1 tac runnin disruptors:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYzNdz-_IKg
1. faster is better in the devs eyes, hence this is how it is intended to be played. if speed was not a factor, then there would not be a timer on optional objectives ("hurr durr it is optional, so you dont have to do it", lol, dont come back at me with that, it will not only sound but will be stupid). most of the games are designed not only for high dps, but burst dps at that, making beams less useful, as they are sustained dps (at that they are good). that makes support gameplay useless, or unnecessary.
2. I wont argue, they are fun. the problem is, that their effects are minor. tanking is not necessary, and without any dps, it is totally useless, while sci... well sci powers are pretty
3. most non escorts are sub 2k dps (not that most escorts are above 4k), and rainbow odys, so lets not count those, shall we?
4. I agree, that we should not take away the damage dealing role from escorts. but when the other roles are useless (yeah, in a premade you gonna be useful with some fancy stuff, but those builds that require certain circumstances, should not matter that much in the big picture, they should, but not to a great amount), and escorts can do both other roles sufficiently, then the only thing we can do for cruisers and sci vessels is to give decent dps to them (making the beams balanced, see below)
wider firing arc does not mean necessarily better usefulness. the FAW is the best example. with CSV you gonna deal a great deal of area dmg (while having a good weapon drain), when FAW will just deal random dmg to random targets, with little control, and the only thing you will do, is get attention to yourself (which is fine, aggro is easy to hold in an escort, a cruiser or a well built sci should have an easier time). if beams had a rapid fire ability, that would be sustained, and not just make a big noise, drain all weapon power, for doing no relevant dmg at all, beams would be great. if we recieved an AoE power that could be controlled, beams would be great, and maybe OP. but without one, beams are UP compared to escorts.
and you can say, that DHCs are for dps and all that. but there are only 4 dhcs on an escort. the rest is turrets. so basically 7 weapons of an escort, 3 being by far inferior to beams, an escort will out dps a cruiser with 8 beams. and it is not only due to the power drain, but how the weapons work. if 8 beams would have the same base dmg and power drain as 7 weapons on the escort, it would still be at a loss due to the abilities the that are at the latter's disposal, and DHCs would still have their own chance of getting multiple critical hits
10k DPS Vesta threads: 1; 2
See, this here is exactly what I am talking about. No, speed is not better, except in the binary question of 'can you get the optional' or not, and Sci ships and Cruisers can. Thus, again, there is no content they cannot do, which means spike DPS gameplay is exactly as "unnecessary" as support game play is, unless you decide that in all cases "Faster" is objectively "Better", and I don't. If you do, that's fine, but that means you should learn to play the class that does what you value, not that everything you don't value should be changed to something you do.
If they are fun, then this shouldn't matter, again unless you are presuming that the only thing that is worthwhile is how fast you complete an STF. I don't see any value in finishing a mission in 3 minutes as opposed to 14 minutes, so that won't persuade me. Second, I disagree entirely that the effects are 'minor', I think they are effects you just don't value as much as you value exploding enemies. Sci can offer a ton of control, and give teams a second chance after they TRIBBLE up Infected, while Cruisers can grab aggro and draw fire away from the rest of the team. Both types can also heal/support other players while doing that. None of that is minor, even if it is not causing an enemy to blow up right away.
This is non-responsive to my argument, unless you are trying to say that we should only count "good" players, and further asserting that those players are all (or even mostly) escort captains. I'm pretty sure this is one of those "I read it on the interwebz, so it must be true" kind of things that has been repeated so often on these boards people just accept it uncritically. I certainly don't feel like it matches my play experience at all.
They are not useless, you just don't see the value in them, which is not a problem with the ships, but with you. Hell, it's not even really a problem at all, except insofar as you keep trying to make things do something they were never intended to do. Here's a thinker for you - if Cruisers and Sci ships have value in premades right now, what would happen to those premades if all of a sudden escort damage became less relevant? And why in your response to point 3 are we discounting the majority of players because they are too bad to count, while now here we are discounting the skilled premade players? It seems like you are trying to show that your opinion is the one that should matter more, which is why accusations of "self-importance" get levied.
LOL. So beam balance means Cruisers do the same amount of base damage, but with wider arcs, while escorts get more Tac buffs and the inherent crit severity bonus of DHC? Right. At this point, I should probably advise you that on my escort, I actually don't use cannons at all, just beams and torps, and they do fine - I don't miss cannons DPS-wise. So, maybe we're already basically where you want to be?
Also, if you think beams can't do spike damage, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Beam Overload, which routinely hits for 20K dmg a pop, with 60-70k hits on a crit. Downside is the drain, of course. If only escorts could use more Emergency power skills, batteries, and even EPS consoles to regen that power loss quickly...
Oh, and FAW is great, if you actually think to use it when you want to clear out spam, or when you can isolate targets so that your extra shots go all to the same place. Or if you want to grab aggro from a bunch of stuff to tank it for your team, even.
I'm routinely out DPSing my plasma build with the exact same build with other energy types. With poorer gear.
By about 200-500 DPS on average with AP. A little more with my Polarized Disruptors.
This is while still using +plasma consoles. Exact same build but going down to blue mk xi tac consoles and in the case of the AP beams mk xi borg beams... (And yes, I wasn't just parsing against borg)
Further testing is required, but I'm thinking the nature of +plasma consoles maybe causing me more plasma procs, which however unlikely may be doing it. I didn't think of what might be causing it till this morning, so I will have to gather more data and see if that is the cause.
It would seems that plasma is not the end all, even in a sci ship that can really exploit those consoles. They might end up being a stronger benefit for other weapon types, by adding multiple procs.
This also helps explain some of my Kumari weirdness. Common wisdom was that the wing cannon platforms were "bad" and the cannon was "bad," so I put together a romulan plasma set for her and my DPS went down. I had first just assumed it was other people being bad at math, because when I re-parsed my Kumari the wing cannon platforms were like 8-9% of my DPS so I just assumed that was the difference. If I ever get done with all these beam tests I might have to go back and see what the difference is between just the plasma and phasers.
Edit: And if they really did manage to get those +plasma consoles balanced so well that you are getting roughly equal damage rather you add the raw boost or take it as an extra proc... Color me impressed. It solves the "Plasma is absolute junk in PvP because of end game shields" dilemma without making Plasma the only answer. It also boosts sci damage a bit, which is probably a good thing as sci carriers kinda whip the snot out of sci ships... IMO... Don't burn me at the stake I'm not trying to be a jerk =P
With beams anyway, who knows how they interact with other weapons... that's some parsing for another day...
Edit2: I finally lost damage, with phased polarons, but only like 200-300. I find it funny that all of these variances could easily be statistical noise...
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Edit: I should define dismal failure, I'm still beating your average pug, but my torp build just rips things up single target. Like, I do damn near as much damage in an AE situation with my single target torp build going after one at a time as I can get blasting AE thru the same situation. Of course, this requires aiming an Atrox... Am I just expecting too much from the beams single target?
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Back before F2P when the Borg STF's weren't nerfed, Khitomer's Gates could only be attacked about every 10-20 seconds out of 1-2 minutes, much like the Doomsday weapon. Only you don't have the crazy Harg-Peng damage bonus and you had to deal with whatever it spat out back then as well (Probes, Probes & Spheres or A Cube.) You don't know STO Burst DPS until you've had to deal with that. The Game has become far more Sustained DPS friendly than it was then.
Against the same number of valid targets, with the same additional buffs, the ONLY reason Scatter Volley does more damage is because DHC's do that much more damage than beams. However Fire At Will gets better the more targets there are while Scatter Volley is restricted to a Cone. It's a playstyle/skill difference between the two abilities.
Escorts have the BOFF layout to stack both single target and AoE abilities plus being able to cycle one of them. Cruisers have the BOFF layout to slip in an Epower to Weapons or 2, which mitigates Beam power drain somewhat. (I am ignoring Aux to Bat setups as that includes DOFFS)
As for your weapon numbers you forgot to subtract the Torpedo but are otherwise correct for the same BOFF layout reason.
Yes to the second question, Rapid Fire benefits cannons more than Fire at Will/Beam Overload benefits beams. IE Rapid Fire adds more damage than Fire at Will and it benefits all your Cannon's rather than the 1 Beam Array that Beam Overload is restricted to. Beam Power drain also means that an unbuffed 3x Dual Beam Bank setup vs. a 3x Dual Heavy Cannon setup will see the beams lose out. (Plus they lack synergy with rear weapons.)