I'm a little confused with what you're doing with this post. I mean that genuinely. Is this sarcasm? Is it an apology stretched over three paragraphs?
If its sarcasm I'm not finding anything persuasive in it, inverted to adjust for the flood of it.
If it's an apology that's fine, though it's not necessary here. Disagreement is a large part of forum posting, and I already said enough to challenge the assumption that "the way I like to play = gameplay", which I still find very presumptive and wrong.
It's a genuine apology, this is the 2nd topic on this forum I just started arguing without thinking today, and after reading someone else replies to my post, found own reasoning faulty as hell, thus it's not about disagreeing with you, but just posting and not even giving a seconds thought about what you actually proposed.
To make it clear, I think your launcher slot idea has some merit, but how implement it exactly without upsetting large amounts of player is a good question.
The problem with this idea is that it's a game, so everything has to be in balance, the only way I see the devs doing this is by removing one or more of the regular weapons slots to make your dedicated torpedo slots. Why not just let the min-maxers have their beam boats, not every ship needs to have torpedoes. Another problem with this is that it is unnecessarily restricting toward torpedo boats. A lot of people like to use more then one type of torpedo, that's not possible if ships are restricted to only one or two per battery.
To answer this, I'm undecided on whether it would be better to add this secondary weapon/projectile slot, or to trade weapons lots that already exist for it.
The latter might actually work better overall, but of course all the worst fears and accusations of the naysayers would have more ammunition if I endorsed it.
It's pretty much a 3 way battle...what you want vs what those other people want vs what the devs want.
Remember some of those naysayers may have paid for those weapons with Dil, Zen or real money. Adding in additional torpedo slots rather then taking them away from the current pool of weapon slots would be best imo. But then as some of you have already mentioned this would just add more creep into the game. So the devs adjust weapon damage slightly, but i think torpedo launchers themselves could use a bit if a redesign. I say this so that people who favor certain builds such as full beam array boats are accommodated.
Probes for science for example, which is a good idea cause this can allow the devs to come up with some new (and hopefully not OP) mechanics that would make Sci caps/ships more useful. We already have WAQT launchers so why not expand upon that for the slow flyers in cruiser beamboats? create launchers that are cruiser-only and give forward torpedos a wide firing arc like 180 or 250 degrees and give them torpedos that can only fit into rear launchers but with a narrow arc but slightly more damage. Escort-only launchers can get some interesting mechanics too, like the dyson gravimetric torpedo. Emission seeking, the quantums from the Avenger, the Omega launcher that has charges etc.
Hmm, if done right, I could see that work, especially on specific ships. "Artillery" isn't that bad an idea either, if you meant perhaps 15km slow firing AOE-blast-at-impact weapons.
No I mean additional class-specific hard-points. IE, give dreadnoughts a heavy weapon hard-point that can mount things like lances, give escorts a dedicated mine-dropper hard-point, that kind of thing. Similar to how carriers have docking bay hard-points.
No I mean additional class-specific hard-points. IE, give dreadnoughts a heavy weapon hard-point that can mount things like lances, give escorts a dedicated mine-dropper hard-point, that kind of thing. Similar to how carriers have docking bay hard-points.
Not a bad idea at all. I think it could work great and add a good kind of complexity to the game.
It's a genuine apology, this is the 2nd topic on this forum I just started arguing without thinking today, and after reading someone else replies to my post, found own reasoning faulty as hell, thus it's not about disagreeing with you, but just posting and not even giving a seconds thought about what you actually proposed.
To make it clear, I think your launcher slot idea has some merit, but how implement it exactly without upsetting large amounts of player is a good question.
Apology accepted then.
I do agree that there'd be a lot to be ironed out to make this proposal work, and if Cryptic liked it, it'd definitely need some internal testing and discussion.
It's pretty much a 3 way battle...what you want vs what those other people want vs what the devs want.
Remember some of those naysayers may have paid for those weapons with Dil, Zen or real money. Adding in additional torpedo slots rather then taking them away from the current pool of weapon slots would be best imo. But then as some of you have already mentioned this would just add more creep into the game. So the devs adjust weapon damage slightly, but i think torpedo launchers themselves could use a bit if a redesign. I say this so that people who favor certain builds such as full beam array boats are accommodated.
Probes for science for example, which is a good idea cause this can allow the devs to come up with some new (and hopefully not OP) mechanics that would make Sci caps/ships more useful. We already have WAQT launchers so why not expand upon that for the slow flyers in cruiser beamboats? create launchers that are cruiser-only and give forward torpedos a wide firing arc like 180 or 250 degrees and give them torpedos that can only fit into rear launchers but with a narrow arc but slightly more damage. Escort-only launchers can get some interesting mechanics too, like the dyson gravimetric torpedo. Emission seeking, the quantums from the Avenger, the Omega launcher that has charges etc.
A weird idea I just came up with would be to expand the "consoles are sometimes weapons" notion and instead of moving torpedoes there, move the POSSIBILITY of torpedoes there. That is to say, a "console" slot for special weapons that could also squeeze in a basic launcher if the user is out of ideas.
Power creep could still happen but I wonder if someone has a good idea for that.
A weird idea I just came up with would be to expand the "consoles are sometimes weapons" notion and instead of moving torpedoes there, move the POSSIBILITY of torpedoes there. That is to say, a "console" slot for special weapons that could also squeeze in a basic launcher if the user is out of ideas.
Power creep could still happen but I wonder if someone has a good idea for that.
I think you might run into some of the same issues there too though. Consoles that are purchased with lobi, several million EC (fed plasmonic leech), real money (kdf plasmonic, valdore console) will end up competing for console spots with torpedo launchers meant to go into console slots. Ehh i think it would just be best to add new slots and adjust overall dps accordingly.
EDIT: On a side note it would be the easiest way to implement it and those that dont want the launchers dont have to get them. But i have a feeling people that do want the launchers will QQ because of the reasons i mentioned in the above paragraph.
The problem with this idea is that it's a game, so everything has to be in balance, the only way I see the devs doing this is by removing one or more of the regular weapons slots to make your dedicated torpedo slots. Why not just let the min-maxers have their beam boats, not every ship needs to have torpedoes. Another problem with this is that it is unnecessarily restricting toward torpedo boats. A lot of people like to use more then one type of torpedo, that's not possible if ships are restricted to only one or two per battery.
Yes some restrictions could occur. Some restrictions may also lift. And balance isn't the key, fun is. Fun being subjective, all I can offer is that I myself would like to see this change because it'd be fun ot see more and varied torpedo usage over just beam arrays or just cannons.
I think most of the opposition to this probably lies among the pvp crowd mostly. Everything's so specifically balanced, rotated and managed in ways to be just so, to ensure victory and make sure your opponent can't harm you much at all.
I think any of the proponents of this likely lies in the pve crowd, where adding to something already exisiting is nice, cause it adds to the flavor of the STFs or other events you carry on with in space.
If this is a matter of this particular split let us know and why it would enhance pvp or pve, or destabilize either.
I think you might run into some of the same issues there too though. Consoles that are purchased with lobi, several million EC (fed plasmonic leech), real money (kdf plasmonic, valdore console) will end up competing for console spots with torpedo launchers meant to go into console slots. Ehh i think it would just be best to add new slots and adjust overall dps accordingly.
EDIT: On a side note it would be the easiest way to implement it and those that dont want the launchers dont have to get them. But i have a feeling people that do want the launchers will QQ because of the reasons i mentioned in the above paragraph.
This doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Of course power creep will happen, but if Cryptic adjusts for it and makes NPCs tougher, there's that increased challenge quite a few have been demanding.
Yes some restrictions could occur. Some restrictions may also lift. And balance isn't the key, fun is. Fun being subjective, all I can offer is that I myself would like to see this change because it'd be fun ot see more and varied torpedo usage over just beam arrays or just cannons.
I think most of the opposition to this probably lies among the pvp crowd mostly. Everything's so specifically balanced, rotated and managed in ways to be just so, to ensure victory and make sure your opponent can't harm you much at all.
I think any of the proponents of this likely lies in the pve crowd, where adding to something already exisiting is nice, cause it adds to the flavor of the STFs or other events you carry on with in space.
If this is a matter of this particular split let us know and why it would enhance pvp or pve, or destabilize either.
This post reminds me of a funny moment in an old webcomic called "The Noob". If I recall correctly, it involved the protagonist getting involved with a fictional MMO's pvp/ganker crowd, and to really know their culture, he had to get into their min-max behaviors. To move slightly faster than normal, the ganker leader taught him to grab one particular side of his rump and hop while making coughing sounds.
That's why PVP minmax mentality bothers me when it seeps into gameplay elsewhere. Anything short of "grab the side of your rear and hop while coughing" isn't 100% super minmax efficient and optimal so it makes you a terribad scrub.
Is it any wonder that boating is so prevalent? At least if torpedoes were part of the "minmax" experience at a foundation level it would look a hint more Trek, even if the average minmaxer cares not a whit about that (and I have no idea why they are here).
Translation: "Please force everyone to equip ships the way I do, so my potentially suboptimal preferences don't put me at a disadvantage compared to those who choose their equipment based on stats."
This seems the most accurate. The present system allows someone to equip weapons in slots. You can optimize for beam, or optimize for projectile, or a mix of whatever number. They could technically add probe launchers without needing a separate slot for projectile weapons.
It's odd that the OP proposes this as a way to give people "more options" when it would in fact me limiting the options of players. In fact it seems the OP's goal is nullifying both beam boats and torpedo boats.
This seems the most accurate. The present system allows someone to equip weapons in slots. You can optimize for beam, or optimize for projectile, or a mix of whatever number. They could technically add probe launchers without needing a separate slot for projectile weapons.
It's odd that the OP proposes this as a way to give people "more options" when it would in fact me limiting the options of players. In fact it seems the OP's goal is nullifying both beam boats and torpedo boats.
So a potentially single interchangable slot that might even be used for sensor probes or other not-quite-developed mechanics somehow nullifies boating?
Even if that were the case, I don't see how that's quite so bad of a thing. From pre-beta, from the moment that Cryptic's head guy went on stage and described combat mechanics, he said that the intended combat chemistry would involve energy weapons to weaken shields, then torpedoes to exploit those weaknesses and deal heavier hull damage.
Is it that important of a thing to mash the spacebar with a probably identical rack of weapons front and back? Is it really that necessary a thing that you find the secondary weapon slot proposal some sort of horrid fatal wound to the whole thing?
The current notion of "optimization" is almost universally "get a lot of energy weapons of the same kind and mash spacebar". Defending it as it is sounds downright regressive. Aren't games generally better with more layers, not less?
The "muh freedum" card is being played a bit too often right now, and to predictable results.
So a potentially single interchangable slot that might even be used for sensor probes or other not-quite-developed mechanics somehow nullifies boating?
Even if that were the case, I don't see how that's quite so bad of a thing. From pre-beta, from the moment that Cryptic's head guy went on stage and described combat mechanics, he said that the intended combat chemistry would involve energy weapons to weaken shields, then torpedoes to exploit those weaknesses and deal heavier hull damage.
Is it that important of a thing to mash the spacebar with a probably identical rack of weapons front and back? Is it really that necessary a thing that you find the secondary weapon slot proposal some sort of horrid fatal wound to the whole thing?
The current notion of "optimization" is almost universally "get a lot of energy weapons of the same kind and mash spacebar". Defending it as it is sounds downright regressive. Aren't games generally better with more layers, not less?
The "muh freedum" card is being played a bit too often right now, and to predictable results.
1. There is nothing in the system now which alters utilization of those tactics. If you want to use beams to lower shields and then fire torpedoes you can already do that now.
2. There is a lot more to this than smashing a space bar, no matter what build you use. One can separate firing commands for beams and torpedoes now, by default space bar is just fire all, creating separate slots would not alter that mechanic. Nor does it give anyone anything that they do not already have. But takes away plenty of options for build preferences.
3. The current system allows different people to optimize different ships differently. This includes torpedo boats, beam boats or mixes.
4. You brought it up, dragging out a "muh freedoms" remark as if it nullifies it now just makes you a troll.
And of course the big issue is, it would be a significant alteration to the game and the mechanics of ship builds which may not be compatible with existing builds. As such, it is unlikely for PWE to undertake such a alteration due to the problems it would cause with existing player builds.
1. There is nothing in the system now which alters utilization of those tactics. If you want to use beams to lower shields and then fire torpedoes you can already do that now.
2. There is a lot more to this than smashing a space bar, no matter what build you use. One can separate firing commands for beams and torpedoes now, by default space bar is just fire all, creating separate slots would not alter that mechanic. Nor does it give anyone anything that they do not already have. But takes away plenty of options for build preferences.
3. The current system allows different people to optimize different ships differently. This includes torpedo boats, beam boats or mixes.
4. You brought it up, dragging out a "muh freedoms" remark as if it nullifies it now just makes you a troll.
And of course the big issue is, it would be a significant alteration to the game and the mechanics of ship builds which may not be compatible with existing builds. As such, it is unlikely for PWE to undertake such a alteration due to the problems it would cause with existing player builds.
1. I assume you're being dense on purpose here and are not actually that dense. Just about any MMO balance or gameplay issue, ever, can be answered with the same non-answer.
Example: "The hologrind for alpha class Jedi is ruining the game's community because everyone is abandoning their original classes to join the frenzy or get pushed out because they are no longer able to compete" and answering with "if you don't like it you don't have to do it". Hell, just about anything can be densely, uselessly responded to in that way.
Example 2: "There's a bug in this game that allows its exploiter to skip 20 minutes of content and rush to the reward on a Neverwinter map". "If you don't like it don't do it". If you don't get the point there, maybe you are selfish and dense.
2. So adding a new utility slot for secondary weapons reduces or removes your options? That does not even make sense.
3. Well and good except "torpedo boats" have all but ceased to exist outside of silly for-fun builds that min-maxers scream at in STFs.
4. Calling someone a troll does not magically nullify anything else I said. You may as well said "u mad" for how useful such a mud-sling is. And yes I stand by it, a lot of this is "muh freedum" selfish ranting because someone, somewhere, might want to have other approaches to dealing damage than "a lot of one thing".
I must admit I find the idea of an independent torp slot quite appealing myself, I could complete a 3 piece set at no cost to my ship performance, if it comes with both fore and aft slots even better I can complete 2 3 piece sets at no cost to performance...
I must admit I find the idea of an independent torp slot quite appealing myself, I could complete a 3 piece set at no cost to my ship performance, if it comes with both fore and aft slots even better I can complete 2 3 piece sets at no cost to performance...
Creep, creep, creep goes the power...
It might require a re-evaluation of torpedoes and projectile weapons in general. It would not be the first time that already-existing items in the game, even set bonuses, have been affected by changes.
I already acknowledged that power creep may happen. With or without this proposal it happens anyway.
1. I assume you're being dense on purpose here and are not actually that dense. Just about any MMO balance or gameplay issue, ever, can be answered with the same non-answer.
Example: "The hologrind for alpha class Jedi is ruining the game's community because everyone is abandoning their original classes to join the frenzy or get pushed out because they are no longer able to compete" and answering with "if you don't like it you don't have to do it". Hell, just about anything can be densely, uselessly responded to in that way.
Example 2: "There's a bug in this game that allows its exploiter to skip 20 minutes of content and rush to the reward on a Neverwinter map". "If you don't like it don't do it". If you don't get the point there, maybe you are selfish and dense.
2. So adding a new utility slot for secondary weapons reduces or removes your options? That does not even make sense.
3. Well and good except "torpedo boats" have all but ceased to exist outside of silly for-fun builds that min-maxers scream at in STFs.
4. Calling someone a troll does not magically nullify anything else I said. You may as well said "u mad" for how useful such a mud-sling is. And yes I stand by it, a lot of this is "muh freedum" selfish ranting because someone, somewhere, might want to have other approaches to dealing damage than "a lot of one thing".
1. It's not a bug. It does not stop people from competing. I happen to use a mix build myself with energy weapons and kinetic weapons and have no issues "competing".
2. In this case it is moving a slot and limiting what you can put in it. That is a limitation.
3. I'm sure min-maxers may scream in some STF's.... They've never screamed at my mixed build of energy and kinetic weapons. But I've seen all sorts of dicks yell at all sorts of people for all sorts of things in STF's.
4. Once again, you raised the choice as a plus on your side. You got called on it; at such point attempting to play that card is just trolling. There are multiple approaches in this game, right now, people have choices now. Limiting players choices them because you don't like some of them is not "freedom". And frankly that's even worse than min-max dicks yelling in team chat in STF's. I can put a min-max **** on ignore.
1. It's not a bug. It does not stop people from competing. I happen to use a mix build myself with energy weapons and kinetic weapons and have no issues "competing".
2. In this case it is moving a slot and limiting what you can put in it. That is a limitation.
3. I'm sure min-maxers may scream in some STF's.... They've never screamed at my mixed build of energy and kinetic weapons. But I've seen all sorts of dicks yell at all sorts of people for all sorts of things in STF's.
4. Once again, you raised the choice as a plus on your side. You got called on it; at such point attempting to play that card is just trolling. There are multiple approaches in this game, right now, people have choices now. Limiting players choices them because you don't like some of them is not "freedom". And frankly that's even worse than min-max dicks yelling in team chat in STF's. I can put a min-max **** on ignore.
Either you're waving a crystal ball or a fake psychology degree at this point. I would have answered points 1-3 like I did before, but point 4 places you firmly on the "useless poster, not worth answering" list.
Having read the more useful replies in this thread, for and against, I think I'm ready to say that having a utility/secondary weapon slot may be more helpful overall to game development than a straight "projectile" slot. If a projectile can be put in it, great. But it'd be a good place for probes, or lance weapons, as-yet-undesigned artillery, or if it fits better, yes, a torpedo.
It'd take tuning, but so did the introduction of warp cores.
This is a ingenious idea to addressing the 'pure energy build supremacy' state of things, without forcing people who love said builds to have to sacrifice or change anything themselves. The element of adding extra versatility to science ships is also good.
This is a ingenious idea to addressing the 'pure energy build supremacy' state of things, without forcing people who love said builds to have to sacrifice or change anything themselves. The element of adding extra versatility to science ships is also good.
I hope Cryptic thinks the same.
Well Cryptic has responded to forum posts in the past. They might take this in consdieration. They did respond to some guy talking about "hey, we should have spacedock interior with docked ships to look at" and DStahl said it was a great idea, and there they are.
(Granted its mostly a Wheel of Fortune showcase of the next C-store ship but, still there )
You know perhaps the torpedo slot thing could work in tandem with ship types within the class.
For example an escort emphasising torpedos may have more slots or some kind of torpedo cooldown bonus vs say an escort that emphasizes energy weapons may recive a bonus against weapon drain.
It may be limiting or pushing people into areas they didn't wanna go with the ships they're in now though, not sure, but just an idea to make the slot work in tandem with a concept of ship design. That big old rollbar on the armitage and stuff seems to point to a design focus in that. Maybe some warbirds like the T'varo might be similar.
Cruisers might have extra punch or maybe their spreads affect more targets. The Enterprise-D was flinging out huge clusters of them a lot. It'd help grab more aggro for the tanky type of cruisers.
This is a great idea both in terms of gameplay, as well as adding some better canon/immersion into the game. Every vessel in the shows has had a multitude of beam arrays as well as torpedoes. Makes sense and would add a nice dimension to combat. As a sci cap, I also love the idea of deployable probes. As an aside, I heard they may be adding a second deflector slot to science vessels!
"Be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars."
1. To preserve something close to the current level of firepower (so the Devs don't have to go back and change enemy mobs and encounters to match), it would probably mean taking one of the existing weapon slots rather than adding one.
2. If we're saying "This slot is only for torpedoes", why don't we have other slots that are "only for energy weapons"? Otherwise, there's nothing stopping someone from loading all (or more) torps into the existing weapon slots and any consequences to game balance that might arise from that.
I wouldn't turn down another weapon slot for torps, mind you, but in the end it sounds like something that would suck up a lot of dev time to implement and isn't strictly necessary.
Warp cores were doable because they essentially assumed some of the functionality of the Impulse Engines (Sector Space speed) and added additional power and possibly extra functionality. In comparison, it was being added to everything and it was easier to integrate into the game than altering weapon loadout would be.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Hey Geek, give a torp boat a try right now for a day. I think you'll find it's a definite downgrade in effectiveness; even per the 'pros' slotting a single torp is a substantial decrease in damage output. I doubt this would cause all torp load-outs to displace energy ones unless there was also a torpedo buff alongside it.
As for going back and redoing content, they haven't really done that for any of the power creep since the Fleet system and Tier 5.5 came to be. And now we have Aux2Batt plus DEM and BFAW beamboat cruisers carving up STFs more brutally than escorts, too. A bit late to worry about that, haha; or is just means they'll need to re-balance these anyways, so why not tweak the weapon slots?
2. If we're saying "This slot is only for torpedoes", why don't we have other slots that are "only for energy weapons"?
Why dont we indeed? Phaser strips should only hold energy weapons, dont you think? Either that or the phaser strips should not be hardcoded to the model.
Different ships have different characteristics. When you aim cannons/guns, you aim with the ship. This is how you balance classes. Right now the game is all the same class with the same system power and loadout and the only difference between them is the model and maneuvering.
A gunboat shoud be a gunboat, a cruiser should be a cruiser, and so forth
You could just put two trops on the front and two beams and to hell with OMG dpszzzz and play how you want to? Just saying ya know.
Though, with this trop slot you speak of, I could fire trops all over the place.... yes you guessed it. DPS be damned! I want my trek fit and that means I for the most part run with ....two of them in the front! :eek:
Aaah but have phasers all over the place + trops front and back would remind me of the good old days of Star Fleet command...
Loved how we had hardpoints so you could have like...8 beams or so and 4 torps.
Then again...those beams fired once per hard point then charged back up.. Not like how they do on here.
I'm going to have to go back and read up on that game, I can't remember much about it now
Yeah the whole Torp Slot idea would mean that the other slots inherintly are only energy weapon slots. No torps could go there.
This way it doesn't detract from the energy slots already there and only adds to ships and like the old old old dialogue for this game during development said that we had beams to hit those shields and torpedos to hit the hull
Basically the problem stands now where one could look at a setup and say "Hmm, I could have beams to hit shields and torpedos to hit hull, but then again I could have beams to hit both and do so quicker." And the torps get put by the wayside.
If I could go back in time and whisper sweet nothings into a dev's ear, this is an idea I would have planted. I like the idea of separate torpedo/energy weapons and I think it could have interesting applications on various ship classes when used in a manner parallel to existing weapon slots (cruisers having the most, escorts having most up front, etc).
But it's so late in the game now that changing this would be... weird, at best, and catastrophic at worst. It wouldn't be like adding warp cores was, where it's just another layer of power-creep icing on the cake. It would represent a fundamental change to weapons loadouts, invalidating nearly everything we know now. How would you do firing mechanics? Cooldowns? What balance issues could a ship with eight beams and six tricos bring?
The idea is a good one but it's way too late to even consider implementing.
Comments
It's a genuine apology, this is the 2nd topic on this forum I just started arguing without thinking today, and after reading someone else replies to my post, found own reasoning faulty as hell, thus it's not about disagreeing with you, but just posting and not even giving a seconds thought about what you actually proposed.
To make it clear, I think your launcher slot idea has some merit, but how implement it exactly without upsetting large amounts of player is a good question.
It's pretty much a 3 way battle...what you want vs what those other people want vs what the devs want.
Remember some of those naysayers may have paid for those weapons with Dil, Zen or real money. Adding in additional torpedo slots rather then taking them away from the current pool of weapon slots would be best imo. But then as some of you have already mentioned this would just add more creep into the game. So the devs adjust weapon damage slightly, but i think torpedo launchers themselves could use a bit if a redesign. I say this so that people who favor certain builds such as full beam array boats are accommodated.
Probes for science for example, which is a good idea cause this can allow the devs to come up with some new (and hopefully not OP) mechanics that would make Sci caps/ships more useful. We already have WAQT launchers so why not expand upon that for the slow flyers in cruiser beamboats? create launchers that are cruiser-only and give forward torpedos a wide firing arc like 180 or 250 degrees and give them torpedos that can only fit into rear launchers but with a narrow arc but slightly more damage. Escort-only launchers can get some interesting mechanics too, like the dyson gravimetric torpedo. Emission seeking, the quantums from the Avenger, the Omega launcher that has charges etc.
No I mean additional class-specific hard-points. IE, give dreadnoughts a heavy weapon hard-point that can mount things like lances, give escorts a dedicated mine-dropper hard-point, that kind of thing. Similar to how carriers have docking bay hard-points.
Not a bad idea at all. I think it could work great and add a good kind of complexity to the game.
Apology accepted then.
I do agree that there'd be a lot to be ironed out to make this proposal work, and if Cryptic liked it, it'd definitely need some internal testing and discussion.
A weird idea I just came up with would be to expand the "consoles are sometimes weapons" notion and instead of moving torpedoes there, move the POSSIBILITY of torpedoes there. That is to say, a "console" slot for special weapons that could also squeeze in a basic launcher if the user is out of ideas.
Power creep could still happen but I wonder if someone has a good idea for that.
I think you might run into some of the same issues there too though. Consoles that are purchased with lobi, several million EC (fed plasmonic leech), real money (kdf plasmonic, valdore console) will end up competing for console spots with torpedo launchers meant to go into console slots. Ehh i think it would just be best to add new slots and adjust overall dps accordingly.
EDIT: On a side note it would be the easiest way to implement it and those that dont want the launchers dont have to get them. But i have a feeling people that do want the launchers will QQ because of the reasons i mentioned in the above paragraph.
Yes some restrictions could occur. Some restrictions may also lift. And balance isn't the key, fun is. Fun being subjective, all I can offer is that I myself would like to see this change because it'd be fun ot see more and varied torpedo usage over just beam arrays or just cannons.
I think most of the opposition to this probably lies among the pvp crowd mostly. Everything's so specifically balanced, rotated and managed in ways to be just so, to ensure victory and make sure your opponent can't harm you much at all.
I think any of the proponents of this likely lies in the pve crowd, where adding to something already exisiting is nice, cause it adds to the flavor of the STFs or other events you carry on with in space.
If this is a matter of this particular split let us know and why it would enhance pvp or pve, or destabilize either.
This doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Of course power creep will happen, but if Cryptic adjusts for it and makes NPCs tougher, there's that increased challenge quite a few have been demanding.
This post reminds me of a funny moment in an old webcomic called "The Noob". If I recall correctly, it involved the protagonist getting involved with a fictional MMO's pvp/ganker crowd, and to really know their culture, he had to get into their min-max behaviors. To move slightly faster than normal, the ganker leader taught him to grab one particular side of his rump and hop while making coughing sounds.
That's why PVP minmax mentality bothers me when it seeps into gameplay elsewhere. Anything short of "grab the side of your rear and hop while coughing" isn't 100% super minmax efficient and optimal so it makes you a terribad scrub.
Is it any wonder that boating is so prevalent? At least if torpedoes were part of the "minmax" experience at a foundation level it would look a hint more Trek, even if the average minmaxer cares not a whit about that (and I have no idea why they are here).
This seems the most accurate. The present system allows someone to equip weapons in slots. You can optimize for beam, or optimize for projectile, or a mix of whatever number. They could technically add probe launchers without needing a separate slot for projectile weapons.
It's odd that the OP proposes this as a way to give people "more options" when it would in fact me limiting the options of players. In fact it seems the OP's goal is nullifying both beam boats and torpedo boats.
So a potentially single interchangable slot that might even be used for sensor probes or other not-quite-developed mechanics somehow nullifies boating?
Even if that were the case, I don't see how that's quite so bad of a thing. From pre-beta, from the moment that Cryptic's head guy went on stage and described combat mechanics, he said that the intended combat chemistry would involve energy weapons to weaken shields, then torpedoes to exploit those weaknesses and deal heavier hull damage.
Is it that important of a thing to mash the spacebar with a probably identical rack of weapons front and back? Is it really that necessary a thing that you find the secondary weapon slot proposal some sort of horrid fatal wound to the whole thing?
The current notion of "optimization" is almost universally "get a lot of energy weapons of the same kind and mash spacebar". Defending it as it is sounds downright regressive. Aren't games generally better with more layers, not less?
The "muh freedum" card is being played a bit too often right now, and to predictable results.
1. There is nothing in the system now which alters utilization of those tactics. If you want to use beams to lower shields and then fire torpedoes you can already do that now.
2. There is a lot more to this than smashing a space bar, no matter what build you use. One can separate firing commands for beams and torpedoes now, by default space bar is just fire all, creating separate slots would not alter that mechanic. Nor does it give anyone anything that they do not already have. But takes away plenty of options for build preferences.
3. The current system allows different people to optimize different ships differently. This includes torpedo boats, beam boats or mixes.
4. You brought it up, dragging out a "muh freedoms" remark as if it nullifies it now just makes you a troll.
And of course the big issue is, it would be a significant alteration to the game and the mechanics of ship builds which may not be compatible with existing builds. As such, it is unlikely for PWE to undertake such a alteration due to the problems it would cause with existing player builds.
1. I assume you're being dense on purpose here and are not actually that dense. Just about any MMO balance or gameplay issue, ever, can be answered with the same non-answer.
Example: "The hologrind for alpha class Jedi is ruining the game's community because everyone is abandoning their original classes to join the frenzy or get pushed out because they are no longer able to compete" and answering with "if you don't like it you don't have to do it". Hell, just about anything can be densely, uselessly responded to in that way.
Example 2: "There's a bug in this game that allows its exploiter to skip 20 minutes of content and rush to the reward on a Neverwinter map". "If you don't like it don't do it". If you don't get the point there, maybe you are selfish and dense.
2. So adding a new utility slot for secondary weapons reduces or removes your options? That does not even make sense.
3. Well and good except "torpedo boats" have all but ceased to exist outside of silly for-fun builds that min-maxers scream at in STFs.
4. Calling someone a troll does not magically nullify anything else I said. You may as well said "u mad" for how useful such a mud-sling is. And yes I stand by it, a lot of this is "muh freedum" selfish ranting because someone, somewhere, might want to have other approaches to dealing damage than "a lot of one thing".
Creep, creep, creep goes the power...
It might require a re-evaluation of torpedoes and projectile weapons in general. It would not be the first time that already-existing items in the game, even set bonuses, have been affected by changes.
I already acknowledged that power creep may happen. With or without this proposal it happens anyway.
1. It's not a bug. It does not stop people from competing. I happen to use a mix build myself with energy weapons and kinetic weapons and have no issues "competing".
2. In this case it is moving a slot and limiting what you can put in it. That is a limitation.
3. I'm sure min-maxers may scream in some STF's.... They've never screamed at my mixed build of energy and kinetic weapons. But I've seen all sorts of dicks yell at all sorts of people for all sorts of things in STF's.
4. Once again, you raised the choice as a plus on your side. You got called on it; at such point attempting to play that card is just trolling. There are multiple approaches in this game, right now, people have choices now. Limiting players choices them because you don't like some of them is not "freedom". And frankly that's even worse than min-max dicks yelling in team chat in STF's. I can put a min-max **** on ignore.
Either you're waving a crystal ball or a fake psychology degree at this point. I would have answered points 1-3 like I did before, but point 4 places you firmly on the "useless poster, not worth answering" list.
Thanks for the bump, I guess.
It'd take tuning, but so did the introduction of warp cores.
I hope Cryptic thinks the same.
Well Cryptic has responded to forum posts in the past. They might take this in consdieration. They did respond to some guy talking about "hey, we should have spacedock interior with docked ships to look at" and DStahl said it was a great idea, and there they are.
(Granted its mostly a Wheel of Fortune showcase of the next C-store ship but, still there
For example an escort emphasising torpedos may have more slots or some kind of torpedo cooldown bonus vs say an escort that emphasizes energy weapons may recive a bonus against weapon drain.
It may be limiting or pushing people into areas they didn't wanna go with the ships they're in now though, not sure, but just an idea to make the slot work in tandem with a concept of ship design. That big old rollbar on the armitage and stuff seems to point to a design focus in that. Maybe some warbirds like the T'varo might be similar.
Cruisers might have extra punch or maybe their spreads affect more targets. The Enterprise-D was flinging out huge clusters of them a lot. It'd help grab more aggro for the tanky type of cruisers.
1. To preserve something close to the current level of firepower (so the Devs don't have to go back and change enemy mobs and encounters to match), it would probably mean taking one of the existing weapon slots rather than adding one.
2. If we're saying "This slot is only for torpedoes", why don't we have other slots that are "only for energy weapons"? Otherwise, there's nothing stopping someone from loading all (or more) torps into the existing weapon slots and any consequences to game balance that might arise from that.
I wouldn't turn down another weapon slot for torps, mind you, but in the end it sounds like something that would suck up a lot of dev time to implement and isn't strictly necessary.
Warp cores were doable because they essentially assumed some of the functionality of the Impulse Engines (Sector Space speed) and added additional power and possibly extra functionality. In comparison, it was being added to everything and it was easier to integrate into the game than altering weapon loadout would be.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
As for going back and redoing content, they haven't really done that for any of the power creep since the Fleet system and Tier 5.5 came to be. And now we have Aux2Batt plus DEM and BFAW beamboat cruisers carving up STFs more brutally than escorts, too. A bit late to worry about that, haha; or is just means they'll need to re-balance these anyways, so why not tweak the weapon slots?
Different ships have different characteristics. When you aim cannons/guns, you aim with the ship. This is how you balance classes. Right now the game is all the same class with the same system power and loadout and the only difference between them is the model and maneuvering.
A gunboat shoud be a gunboat, a cruiser should be a cruiser, and so forth
You could just put two trops on the front and two beams and to hell with OMG dpszzzz and play how you want to? Just saying ya know.
Though, with this trop slot you speak of, I could fire trops all over the place.... yes you guessed it. DPS be damned! I want my trek fit and that means I for the most part run with ....two of them in the front! :eek:
Aaah but have phasers all over the place + trops front and back would remind me of the good old days of Star Fleet command...
Loved how we had hardpoints so you could have like...8 beams or so and 4 torps.
Then again...those beams fired once per hard point then charged back up.. Not like how they do on here.
I'm going to have to go back and read up on that game, I can't remember much about it now
This way it doesn't detract from the energy slots already there and only adds to ships and like the old old old dialogue for this game during development said that we had beams to hit those shields and torpedos to hit the hull
Basically the problem stands now where one could look at a setup and say "Hmm, I could have beams to hit shields and torpedos to hit hull, but then again I could have beams to hit both and do so quicker." And the torps get put by the wayside.
But it's so late in the game now that changing this would be... weird, at best, and catastrophic at worst. It wouldn't be like adding warp cores was, where it's just another layer of power-creep icing on the cake. It would represent a fundamental change to weapons loadouts, invalidating nearly everything we know now. How would you do firing mechanics? Cooldowns? What balance issues could a ship with eight beams and six tricos bring?
The idea is a good one but it's way too late to even consider implementing.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life