Still didn't answer the question. Are the the only skills that you need to roughly max projectile weaponry use in space, or are there more?
I answered the question pretty directly. Now you're just splitting hairs and are doing the deconstructionist gimmick of nitpicking until anything/everything looks ridiculous.
Those two skills directly benefit and are required by torpedo-using ships.
Yes, others are needed for energy ships, but the thing you're missing with your rhetorical tricks is that even torpedo-users need those energy-related skills (and need to use energy weapons)! Unlike energy-exclusive ships, the torpedo users also need to pay for their torpedoes at the price of functionality or even survivability elsewhere.
If that's not clear enough for you, I frankly can not put it any other way short of picking up a "Earlnyghthawk Conversational Dictionary" and finding a way to put it that pleases you.
And I'm not interested in that, not as much as I'd rather talk to, discuss, and even debate with people here who don't get so easily caught up in their own little "gotcha" games with people they disagree with.
I answered the question pretty directly. Now you're just splitting hairs and are doing the deconstructionist gimmick of nitpicking until anything/everything looks ridiculous.
Those two skills directly benefit and are required by torpedo-using ships.
Yes, others are needed for energy ships, but the thing you're missing with your rhetorical tricks is that even torpedo-users need those energy-related skills! Unlike energy-exclusive ships, the torpedo users also need to pay for their torpedoes at the price of functionality or even survivability elsewhere.
If that's not clear enough for you, too bad. This line of "questioning" is getting ridiculous.
To simplify your point:
A energy only ship doesn't need torpedo skills. Energy weapons deal enough damage to shields and hull to beat the enemy. A torpedo heavy ship needs energy skills AND torpedo skills since torpedoes aren't able to deal sufficient damage to shields to be viable on their own as opposed to energy weapons.
I hope I haven't simplified it too much and still kept the basic premise, because even from the outside of your discussion it got quite tedious to read the same question/answer over and over again
Granted, you could slot only torpedoes and experiment with science skills that drain shields for example, though shields in STO became so ridiculously powerful/regenerative that you aren't going anywhere, really, since it only takes a shield battery to completely nullify the torpedoes' effect.
Mind you, if the system would be more "simulator-esque" of course torpedoes wouldn't have cooldowns of a few seconds but on the contrary, if your shields are out they are out until you repair them which doesn't take only one click or a few seconds either.
But ths would even mean that we can't blow up trillions of ships in a row anymore and if a mission would be to include combat, two or three ships would already be a massive battle if you are on your own. And something like that isn't covered by STOs gameplay, really.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Customization is an illusion when the choices are between a clearly optimal build and a suboptimal one that wastes a lot of skillpoints in a weapon type that isn't even desirable, let alone necessary, in current game mechanics.
One of the very first things I figured out all on my own way back when, was torpedoes on a cruiser is a waste.
On escorts, there is a valid decision. Do you want a torpedo firing along with your energy weapons of choice, or do you want just all energy weapons firing? On cruisers, the choice is, do you want all of your weapons firing all the time, or do you want one or more that can only fire, when other weapons can't?
Torpedoes are quite viable on an escort. I still use them on most of mine. Maybe not the most wise decision, but one that works for me, to great effect. For me, the real issue is how to make them a viable option on cruisers?
An issue made more complicated by the addition of crusierscorts. (i.e. Avenger/Mogh)
A energy only ship doesn't need torpedo skills. Energy weapons deal enough damage to shields and hull to beat the enemy. A torpedo heavy ship needs energy skills AND torpedo skills since torpedoes aren't able to deal sufficient damage to shields to be viable on their own as opposed to energy weapons.
I hope I haven't simplified it too much and still kept the basic premise, because even from the outside of your discussion it got quite tedious to read the same question/answer over and over again
Granted, you could slot only torpedoes and experiment with science skills that drain shields for example, though shields in STO became so ridiculously powerful/regenerative that you aren't going anywhere, really, since it only takes a shield battery to completely nullify the torpedoes' effect.
Mind you, if the system would be more "simulator-esque" of course torpedoes wouldn't have cooldowns of a few seconds but on the contrary, if your shields are out they are out until you repair them which doesn't take only one click or a few seconds either.
But ths would even mean that we can't blow up trillions of ships in a row anymore and if a mission would be to include combat, two or three ships would already be a massive battle if you are on your own. And something like that isn't covered by STOs gameplay, really.
You put it better than I did and I thank you for that.
If I get yet another "you didn't answer my question" game I'll just ignore it and move on.
One of the very first things I figured out all on my own way back when, was torpedoes on a cruiser is a waste. (...)
I'd like to counter that statement with the Harg'Peng torpedo. It flies so fast that you can actually score a critical hull hit in the few seconds shields are out.
Mind you the harg'peng's flight speed should be the DEFAULT of torpedoes and not have them creep around 10 seconds until they come near your target. Because right now, the enemies shields are up and running shortly after your torpedoes left your launchers and to exactly NO damage (20%? I don't know the number) to the eemy vessel. BECAUSE THEY ARE WAY TOO SLOW.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
You put it better than I did and I thank you for that.
If I get yet another "you didn't answer my question" game I'll just ignore it and move on.
Don't mention it, I just hope it helped
The really sad thing is that I should be working right now. But arguing the usefulness (or the lack therof) of torpedoes in Star Trek is way more fun :P
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
A energy only ship doesn't need torpedo skills. Energy weapons deal enough damage to shields and hull to beat the enemy. A torpedo heavy ship needs energy skills AND torpedo skills since torpedoes aren't able to deal sufficient damage to shields to be viable on their own as opposed to energy weapons.
I hope I haven't simplified it too much and still kept the basic premise, because even from the outside of your discussion it got quite tedious to read the same question/answer over and over again
Granted, you could slot only torpedoes and experiment with science skills that drain shields for example, though shields in STO became so ridiculously powerful/regenerative that you aren't going anywhere, really, since it only takes a shield battery to completely nullify the torpedoes' effect.
Mind you, if the system would be more "simulator-esque" of course torpedoes wouldn't have cooldowns of a few seconds but on the contrary, if your shields are out they are out until you repair them which doesn't take only one click or a few seconds either.
But ths would even mean that we can't blow up trillions of ships in a row anymore and if a mission would be to include combat, two or three ships would already be a massive battle if you are on your own. And something like that isn't covered by STOs gameplay, really.
Damn, it took an outsider to get my question answered. For which, by the way, thank you, for including all the scenarios relevant to the questions posed, as well as answering a question that wasn't even put to you, unlike the dunce above, who no matter what I ask, sidesteps, and insults, rather than answers, or even really discusses. (and this is why I have 0 resistance to insulting him in return, since I get nothing constructive, and 100% destructive conversation from him).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
To your first part: I explained how it takes away customizability, twice now. Sure, you get more slots to play with. However, you can only put certain weapon types in each. For example: with one previous poster's example, he wanted 4 energy slots, 2 torp slots, on a particular ship. So that means I have to have 4 & 2. NOT 5 & 1. NOT 6 & 0. So it limits my ability to customize. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make the difference between the ability to cutomize a slot, from just having more slots, than I have.
As far as nothing new, where did I say that? However, we've gotten new stuff already, without a balance pass at older content, and thus, it's easier than ever, already, to faceplant enemies really quickly. As in, little to no effort, especially if you buy in to the dps race. Heck, I've watched someone, just 2 nights ago, tear apart a cube, by himself, in about 25 seconds. IF, even that long. If you add more weapon slots to ships, using him as an example, he'd have probably had that cube toast in under 10 seconds. I come on, how much easier, and non-challenging, do you want this game to be?
To boot, I've only had ONE reply to this, that was okay with weaponry getting less damage, to account for the increased damage potential, that adding more weapon slots to all T4 & T5 ships would bring. (No one seems to have thought out how these slots would end up working for the lower tier ships, as of yet).
As far as more powerful enemies, we wouldn't really need any, IF the devs would swing a pass through the content, to make it more of a challenge, at all levels & modes of play, whether Fleet Actions, STF's, Rom missions, and story content. Especially the AI. (Just no more stupid invisi-Gozer torps that seem to be prevalent every now & again).
So yes, I am heavily against dedicated torp slots, and in particular, ADDED weapon slots, without reducing all weapons' damage output, for space.
Honestly, the only added slots I'd like to see, is a system for all 4 arcs (Fore/Aft/Starboard/Port) added, but with a corresponding reduction in most weapons' firing arcs, as you could add weapons to cover the sides.
I can not customize my ship because two slots on the ship have to be launchers! So stupid I mean I can put an impulse engine in this slot or maybe a shield in this slot. I just can't believe they would restrict me from putting things where I want them.
Energy weapon options, phaser, disruptor, plasma, tetryon, polaron or antiproton? Oh the only option is antiproton everything else is a power creep.
Launcher options, photon, chroniton, plasma, quantum, transphasic or tricobalt and probes if allowebb.
Deflector options, standard, gravity or. Tacky
The really sad thing is that I should be working right now. But arguing the usefulness (or the lack therof) of torpedoes in Star Trek is way more fun :P
Lol, now I don't feel so bad, about being at work, and the STO forums......:D
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I can not customize my ship because two slots on the ship have to be launchers! So stupid I mean I can put an impulse engine in this slot or maybe a shield in this slot. I just can't believe they would restrict me from putting things where I want them.
Energy weapon options, phaser, disruptor, plasma, tetryon, polaron or antiproton? Oh the only option is antiproton everything else is a power creep.
Launcher options, photon, chroniton, plasma, quantum, transphasic or tricobalt and probes if allowebb.
Deflector options, standard, gravity or. Tacky
Now being honest, that's just in the realm of foolish, like ******** that you can't shove a rear-wheel drive differential under the hood of a car, and have it work like it should.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Damn, it took an outsider to get my question answered. For which, by the way, thank you, for including all the scenarios relevant to the questions posed, as well as answering a question that wasn't even put to you, unlike the dunce above, who no matter what I ask, sidesteps, and insults, rather than answers, or even really discusses. (and this is why I have 0 resistance to insulting him in return, since I get nothing constructive, and 100% destructive conversation from him).
I asked you once and I feel the need to ask you again: knock it off please.
You might not notice that you're not helping your problem with amal one bit, complaining about being insulted then saying "dunce" at the drop of a hat, among other things. No schoolyard "he said mean things first" game justifies this.
Just give an opinion, be ready for others to disagree, and stop taking things personal. I think amal got the message, so please do the same.
Damn, it took an outsider to get my question answered. For which, by the way, thank you, for including all the scenarios relevant to the questions posed, as well as answering a question that wasn't even put to you, unlike the dunce above, who no matter what I ask, sidesteps, and insults, rather than answers, or even really discusses. (and this is why I have 0 resistance to insulting him in return, since I get nothing constructive, and 100% destructive conversation from him).
Well, I got him just fine. And I'm pretty sure you did, too. We all are playing the same game, right? Maybe you don't WANT to get him, I don't know. Back in the ethics thread you said the same about being insulted, yet once again I fail to see where you were insulted or you were denied an answer to your question. Maybe you don't take enough time to read carefully.
Just keep calm and be fair, all participants of this discussion will thank you for it
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Well, I got him just fine. And I'm pretty sure you did, too. We all are playing the same game, right? Maybe you don't WANT to get him, I don't know. Back in the ethics thread you said the same about being insulted, yet once again I fail to see where you were insulted or you were denied an answer to your question. Maybe you don't take enough time to read carefully.
Just keep calm and be fair, all participants of this discussion will thank you for it
This to both you and sigurd, out of respect for you two, I'll back off. To the point of not even responding to him at all. But all I've gotten from him, has been insults.
And as far as him failing to answer, he most certainly did not answer my question. (most particularly, my 2nd), I had asked him, in all honesty, if there were more than the two skills he had listed, for projectile space weaponry to be roughly at max effectiveness, and all I got was a snarky, and downright insulting reply. And my whole intent, was to get a full answer, before responding, so I could respond fully, rather than half-cocked, and then get added points in AFTER I started. Better to have as much info, as possible, when trying to discuss something, correct?
But I'll give up on wasting my time with him, as at least you two, seem open to discussion, and others' opinions, as well as advancing your own. For which I thank you. Getting harder and harder to have good discussions anymore with people.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
This to both you and sigurd, out of respect for you two, I'll back off. To the point of not even responding to him at all. But all I've gotten from him, has been insults.
And as far as him failing to answer, he most certainly did not answer my question. (most particularly, my 2nd), I had asked him, in all honesty, if there were more than the two skills he had listed, for projectile space weaponry to be roughly at max effectiveness, and all I got was a snarky, and downright insulting reply. And my whole intent, was to get a full answer, before responding, so I could respond fully, rather than half-cocked, and then get added points in AFTER I started. Better to have as much info, as possible, when trying to discuss something, correct?
But I'll give up on wasting my time with him, as at least you two, seem open to discussion, and others' opinions, as well as advancing your own. For which I thank you. Getting harder and harder to have good discussions anymore with people.
Discussions become easier with people the moment you let go of the unnecessary burden of what people said to you before and how much it bothered you. Looking at that thread, I think you said quite a bit yourself and there are no angels there.
Here, Amal contributed constructively even if he got sidetracked. And the sidetracking seems to be because, whether you intended it or not, you started dragging baggage from the ethics thread over to here. I'd rather let all arguments and opinions stand on their own weight regardless of who said them.
I'd prefer for this thread to stay on topic, for the sake of the OP.
I'd like to counter that statement with the Harg'Peng torpedo. It flies so fast that you can actually score a critical hull hit in the few seconds shields are out.
While a speedier torpedo certainly wouldn't be a bad thing, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to leave the firing arc of half of your weapons to fire one or that when broadside, every torpedo launcher is a wasted slot.
Whether you're stationary and firing or orbiting a target, it's at the least bothersome to have to continually point towards or away from a target to launch a torpedo. And again, unlike on an escort, at no time are all of your weapons going to be firing.
So, I asked myself, what would get me to slot a torpedo on a cruiser?
If the firing arc allowed for broadside launching. That would render a certain console obsolete though, wouldn't it?
If cruisers had a separate "torpedo tube" so I wouldn't have to give up any energy weapon slots. That would solve the slotting a torp issue. Still not sure I'd invest in Boff abilities for something that will only see sporadic use and offer little return. Then there's the CruiserScort issue.
If the damage provided by a torpedo strike was such, that it would offset the loss of one or more continually firing energy weapons. Of course, to just buff torpedoes in such a manner would simply raise escorts to a whole other level. Perhaps another cruiser command that would greatly increase torpedo cooldown time, but also greatly increase yield. Cruiserscorts would not get this command, as alpha strikes would be insane. But, then there's that thing in which cruiser commands buff allies.
Then, maybe a variation of that. Cruisers firing at a greatly reduced rate, but greatly improved yield. I don't mind having to turn in my Sci ship from broadside, because Sci powers have a longer cooldown and the benefit is worth the effort. Just ignore Cruiserscorts.
Alternatively, introduce a Torpedo modifier. The lower the turn rate, the higher the modifier. This though, would have to be fairly significant to get me to slot a torpedo over another beam. Something I doubt would be done right.
While a speedier torpedo certainly wouldn't be a bad thing, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to leave the firing arc of half of your weapons to fire one or that when broadside, every torpedo launcher is a wasted slot. (...)
While that is true it's certainly funny considering the IP at hand. Broadsiding wasn't even a thing as most of those phaser arrays on a Starfleet ship's hull for example were auxilliary arrays that were seldom fired and mostly covered blind spots. During most of the fight only the two major arrays on for example a Galaxies saucer were used - "fore weapon" style. That means if a cruiser faces forward the beams should just do more damage and then torpedoes become "viable" again. But that's another thing to discuss...
But regarding the useless torps: I do broadside a lot and use 6 beams for that, a grav torp fore and the harg'peng aft. The latter has a long cooldown and the former mostly scores due to it's gimmick. I find it works pretty well as 8 beam arrays would drain power so much that it negates at least one beam damage wise.
But I'm no min/maxer, so this won't be a viable option for the top dogs I guess
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Ships carry a load of torpedoes, mines and probes, all of which are deployed via a launcher. There are specific locations as to where these launchers are on a ship. Torps mines and probes are not balls of energy, they are tangible consumeable items.
This needs to be represented in STO. I'm good with them adding launcher slots to ships as I've said in other threads but the launched item needs to be burned and need to be replenished either by going to space dock or other equipment resupply facility.
Maybe add a "munitions" slot in devices. There you can equip your mines/torpedoes and use them.
Maybe have a cap of 10, and they can only be reloaded while docked at station or planet.
I'm thinking along the lines of the turrets you get when you do certain trade assignments. The turrets are equitable in a device slot, and you have just 10 of them.
Though if you have enough in inventory, you can "reload" while in combat. I haven't used them in a while, so I forget how long the cool down is on them.
Plus I think they are a"fire and forget" type of weapon. Meaning they pick their own target. So if setting up torpedoes to be an equitable device, it'd have to be coded to attack the players current target.
But then again, this feels like a "step back". As it seems many space MMOs as well as planet bound MMOs have moved away from physical ammo. Because players "complain" about the cost of the ammo, or the inventory spots it takes up.
Though I wouldn't mind having to use physical ammo, as long as it can be player made as well as purchased from a vendor. Maybe the player made version does more damage or what ever.
I don't think there should be dedicated, torpedo-only weapon slots. All our other weapon slots are universal. This would bring up the "Can we get a Beam/cannon only slot too?" kind of problems. We don't need more weapon slots on our ships.
I am in favor of reworking torpedoes. Right now they are only used in niche (B'rel/T'varo sci bombers and the like) or fun builds (check my sig). Removing/lessening shield kinetic resist, giving hull an innate 75% energy resist to match shield kinetic resist (the most evil option)or removing torpedo global CDs would be a small step for torpedoes, one giant leap for game balance.
Energy vs. Torps isn't a hard decision, it's an illusion of choice.
"Being canon or being useful? Hmmmm...."
This is why torpedoes need a general rework ^^^
However, not all torpedo-bearing ships are useless, I roll with the Hyper and Omega plasma torps fore and I pull a reliable 13k and I still lack some of the more expensive finishing touches. It's nowhere near a FAW spam Scimitar, but it's more than enough to pull my weight in PvE content.
Now being honest, that's just in the realm of foolish, like ******** that you can't shove a rear-wheel drive differential under the hood of a car, and have it work like it should.
Exactly, but this is what we as players have allowed be having Launchers in the same slot as Energy Weapons. There are decidedly distinct differences that make them so they should not "fit" in the same slot.
Maybe add a "munitions" slot in devices. There you can equip your mines/torpedoes and use them.
Maybe have a cap of 10, and they can only be reloaded while docked at station or planet.
I'm thinking along the lines of the turrets you get when you do certain trade assignments. The turrets are equitable in a device slot, and you have just 10 of them.
Though if you have enough in inventory, you can "reload" while in combat. I haven't used them in a while, so I forget how long the cool down is on them.
Plus I think they are a"fire and forget" type of weapon. Meaning they pick their own target. So if setting up torpedoes to be an equitable device, it'd have to be coded to attack the players current target.
But then again, this feels like a "step back". As it seems many space MMOs as well as planet bound MMOs have moved away from physical ammo. Because players "complain" about the cost of the ammo, or the inventory spots it takes up.
Though I wouldn't mind having to use physical ammo, as long as it can be player made as well as purchased from a vendor. Maybe the player made version does more damage or what ever.
I have suggested 250 be the stack size as in most ship layouts they t aTorpedo complement of 250+ I think this gives you plenty of time to use before a reload is needed. I like the "Munitions" idea slots aspart of a Launcher system.
If you think f this in terms of a cmtely automated loading system you would not be able to quickly switch from using Photons to Quantums in the same launcher. You would need to be out of combat to switch load types. However if you depleted your compliment you should be able to load a new stack of munitions even while in combat.
Where we can currently craft them in game I would have no issues having them continue to be crafted as long as they utilize not replicated materials. I think launcher systems should carry the buffs to the munition. That is launchers now have [Acc] [CrtH] [CrtD] [Dmg] this should change slightly as launchers could increase upto 3 areas [Acc] [CrtH] [CrtD] Rapid Firing Rate [RFR] Clustering [Clst] Wide Angle [WA] or Heavy [Hvy]. Rapid Firing Rate means that the rate of fire is faster than average systems. Clustering means that this systems deploys more than average systems. Wide Angle means the systems have a greater firig Arc than average systems. Heavy means that the launcher is capable of firing Heavy munitions. Heavy munitions are targetable, slower moving, higher yeild projectiles (i.e. tricobalt) from any source.
Munitions should be able to carry additional buff [Acc] [Dmg] [Hvy] [Crt] Anti(type) [At]
I don't think there should be dedicated, torpedo-only weapon slots. All our other weapon slots are universal. This would bring up the "Can we get a Beam/cannon only slot too?" kind of problems. We don't need more weapon slots on our ships.
I am in favor of reworking torpedoes. Right now they are only used in niche (B'rel/T'varo sci bombers and the like) or fun builds (check my sig). Removing/lessening shield kinetic resist, giving hull an innate 75% energy resist to match shield kinetic resist (the most evil option)or removing torpedo global CDs would be a small step for torpedoes, one giant leap for game balance.
Edit:
This is why torpedoes need a general rework ^^^
However, not all torpedo-bearing ships are useless, I roll with the Hyper and Omega plasma torps fore and I pull a reliable 13k and I still lack some of the more expensive finishing touches. It's nowhere near a FAW spam Scimitar, but it's more than enough to pull my weight in PvE content.
IMO Torp boats are a farce of STO. I do regret that inacting something like this would hinder someones preffered style of play, but no ship in Trek has ever only carried projectile weapon systems.
Most T-boats I see however, are PvP "shadow strikers" who hide behind a cloak and launching torps or dropping mines never uncloaking to fight proper. If you feel I am insulting your honor as a Warrior maybe you should leave house Duras!
Beam Boats however really would be unaffected with adding launcher slots. Add them or not you wouldn't need to use them and you would still have your energy weapons.
Energy vs. Torps isn't a hard decision, it's an illusion of choice.
"Being canon or being useful? Hmmmm...."
I second this opinion, while assuming someone will say "ah-HA! Beams weren't mentioned so this guy is super wrong!"
This "make hard decisions" thing is a false statement, because the decision was already made long ago, and a lot of the resistance to the idea seems to be from the point of view of "I got mine, my build is optimal, and TRIBBLE everybody else who wants to play any way other than this optimal build."
While that is true it's certainly funny considering the IP at hand. Broadsiding wasn't even a thing as most of those phaser arrays on a Starfleet ship's hull for example were auxilliary arrays that were seldom fired and mostly covered blind spots. During most of the fight only the two major arrays on for example a Galaxies saucer were used - "fore weapon" style. That means if a cruiser faces forward the beams should just do more damage and then torpedoes become "viable" again. But that's another thing to discuss...
But regarding the useless torps: I do broadside a lot and use 6 beams for that, a grav torp fore and the harg'peng aft. The latter has a long cooldown and the former mostly scores due to it's gimmick. I find it works pretty well as 8 beam arrays would drain power so much that it negates at least one beam damage wise.
But I'm no min/maxer, so this won't be a viable option for the top dogs I guess
As a side thing, I think if all beam arrays were made to stack on a single shot, not changing the damage output but just the visual effect, it would also feel more Trek.
"Fire at Will" could remain a scattering spread, but generally in Trek the arrays focus all energy in one direction, which looks better anyway. That's beyond the scope of this thread but still an improvement.
I don't think there should be dedicated, torpedo-only weapon slots. All our other weapon slots are universal. This would bring up the "Can we get a Beam/cannon only slot too?" kind of problems. We don't need more weapon slots on our ships.
I am in favor of reworking torpedoes. Right now they are only used in niche (B'rel/T'varo sci bombers and the like) or fun builds (check my sig). Removing/lessening shield kinetic resist, giving hull an innate 75% energy resist to match shield kinetic resist (the most evil option)or removing torpedo global CDs would be a small step for torpedoes, one giant leap for game balance.
Edit:
This is why torpedoes need a general rework ^^^
However, not all torpedo-bearing ships are useless, I roll with the Hyper and Omega plasma torps fore and I pull a reliable 13k and I still lack some of the more expensive finishing touches. It's nowhere near a FAW spam Scimitar, but it's more than enough to pull my weight in PvE content.
There's a problem with the "leave it be, just buff them" mindset:
It can go too far, and I'm not selfish and petty enough to think that's a good thing.
I'd hate for this forum, and the game, to have the attitude of "if you don't like using torpedoes don't use them" from smug dismissive people, forcing rather exact min-max builds on people that absolutely require them, and presumably in some un-Trek way to boot (imaginations can run wild here, at what optimal could be in the future).
By dividing loadouts, it simutaneously makes the decisions multi-faceted without simply calling in a new min-max thing.
After reading the entirety of this thread (it was a long read too), that the issue most people seem to be alluding to without realizing it is that torpedoes are in need of an improvement. With a 75% resistance to torpedoes on shields, torpedoes have a very small window of opportunity to be effective. Perhaps shield mechanics need to be adjusted so that torps have more effect? Or, perhaps, energy weapons need a nerf against hull so that both have their chance to be useful? Also, what about HYT? Could that be adjusted to be more effective against shields?
I also support the notion of having a dedicated torpedo slot and limited ammo for it. In fact, I think every ship should have specific hardpoints for certain weapons and distributing them among all sides of the ship makes sense. The arc of each weapon should be determined by where they are placed. Front weapons have the widest arc, while the sides would have the second largest, and the aft section would have the smallest arc. Ships capable of mounting DC's (e.g. escorts and BoP) should only have fore and aft arcs with fore torpedoes and aft mines. Cruisers should have all four arcs with multiple fore and aft torpedoes/mines. Science vessels should have a triad of arcs with its least effective facings being the the sides of the aft section and the fore section which will be supplemented by one torpedo launcher each.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
After reading the entirety of this thread (it was a long read too), that the issue most people seem to be alluding to without realizing it is that torpedoes are in need of an improvement. With a 75% resistance to torpedoes on shields, torpedoes have a very small window of opportunity to be effective. Perhaps shield mechanics need to be adjusted so that torps have more effect? Or, perhaps, energy weapons need a nerf against hull so that both have their chance to be useful? Also, what about HYT? Could that be adjusted to be more effective against shields?
I also support the notion of having a dedicated torpedo slot and limited ammo for it. In fact, I think every ship should have specific hardpoints for certain weapons and distributing them among all sides of the ship makes sense. The arc of each weapon should be determined by where they are placed. Front weapons have the widest arc, while the sides would have the second largest, and the aft section would have the smallest arc. Ships capable of mounting DC's (e.g. escorts and BoP) should only have fore and aft arcs with fore torpedoes and aft mines. Cruisers should have all four arcs with multiple fore and aft torpedoes/mines. Science vessels should have a triad of arcs with its least effective facings being the the sides of the aft section and the fore section which will be supplemented by one torpedo launcher each.
Especially if torpedoes were actually useful and worth adding skillpoints for, I'd be fine with an ammunition mechanic. Thing is the more things are proposed to change, the more people will resist it. Gamer culture is that way.
As my title suggests, I am against adding more weapon slots, especially for just one weapon type. Especially as the most of the few that I have seen liking this idea, are also against getting weapon damage lowered to compensate for the added damage output this would cause.
Another aspect of why I'm against, a notable proponent of it, will bear little to no discussion of it, if it doesn't agree with his proposal, he tends to refer to said opponents, as "you got yours" type of people, along with worse.
I think there are FAR better ways to improve customization. Adding beam turrets. Making starboard & port weapon slots, along with reducing weapon arcs, to balance out the fact that you could now mount weapons on either side.
And there's tons of other ideas, that I am sure that could be brought out, that would work far better than locking up slots for just 1 type of weapon, or adding more slots gratuitously.
I welcome discussion, just keep it to a dull roar please.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Well, the reason I created this thread, is to also propose a few ideas of my own, on top of my being against something. Also, I think it would help to start a fresh discussion.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Comments
I answered the question pretty directly. Now you're just splitting hairs and are doing the deconstructionist gimmick of nitpicking until anything/everything looks ridiculous.
Those two skills directly benefit and are required by torpedo-using ships.
Yes, others are needed for energy ships, but the thing you're missing with your rhetorical tricks is that even torpedo-users need those energy-related skills (and need to use energy weapons)! Unlike energy-exclusive ships, the torpedo users also need to pay for their torpedoes at the price of functionality or even survivability elsewhere.
If that's not clear enough for you, I frankly can not put it any other way short of picking up a "Earlnyghthawk Conversational Dictionary" and finding a way to put it that pleases you.
And I'm not interested in that, not as much as I'd rather talk to, discuss, and even debate with people here who don't get so easily caught up in their own little "gotcha" games with people they disagree with.
To simplify your point:
A energy only ship doesn't need torpedo skills. Energy weapons deal enough damage to shields and hull to beat the enemy. A torpedo heavy ship needs energy skills AND torpedo skills since torpedoes aren't able to deal sufficient damage to shields to be viable on their own as opposed to energy weapons.
I hope I haven't simplified it too much and still kept the basic premise, because even from the outside of your discussion it got quite tedious to read the same question/answer over and over again
Granted, you could slot only torpedoes and experiment with science skills that drain shields for example, though shields in STO became so ridiculously powerful/regenerative that you aren't going anywhere, really, since it only takes a shield battery to completely nullify the torpedoes' effect.
Mind you, if the system would be more "simulator-esque" of course torpedoes wouldn't have cooldowns of a few seconds but on the contrary, if your shields are out they are out until you repair them which doesn't take only one click or a few seconds either.
But ths would even mean that we can't blow up trillions of ships in a row anymore and if a mission would be to include combat, two or three ships would already be a massive battle if you are on your own. And something like that isn't covered by STOs gameplay, really.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
One of the very first things I figured out all on my own way back when, was torpedoes on a cruiser is a waste.
On escorts, there is a valid decision. Do you want a torpedo firing along with your energy weapons of choice, or do you want just all energy weapons firing? On cruisers, the choice is, do you want all of your weapons firing all the time, or do you want one or more that can only fire, when other weapons can't?
Torpedoes are quite viable on an escort. I still use them on most of mine. Maybe not the most wise decision, but one that works for me, to great effect. For me, the real issue is how to make them a viable option on cruisers?
An issue made more complicated by the addition of crusierscorts. (i.e. Avenger/Mogh)
You put it better than I did and I thank you for that.
If I get yet another "you didn't answer my question" game I'll just ignore it and move on.
I'd like to counter that statement with the Harg'Peng torpedo. It flies so fast that you can actually score a critical hull hit in the few seconds shields are out.
Mind you the harg'peng's flight speed should be the DEFAULT of torpedoes and not have them creep around 10 seconds until they come near your target. Because right now, the enemies shields are up and running shortly after your torpedoes left your launchers and to exactly NO damage (20%? I don't know the number) to the eemy vessel. BECAUSE THEY ARE WAY TOO SLOW.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Don't mention it, I just hope it helped
The really sad thing is that I should be working right now. But arguing the usefulness (or the lack therof) of torpedoes in Star Trek is way more fun :P
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I can not customize my ship because two slots on the ship have to be launchers! So stupid I mean I can put an impulse engine in this slot or maybe a shield in this slot. I just can't believe they would restrict me from putting things where I want them.
Energy weapon options, phaser, disruptor, plasma, tetryon, polaron or antiproton? Oh the only option is antiproton everything else is a power creep.
Launcher options, photon, chroniton, plasma, quantum, transphasic or tricobalt and probes if allowebb.
Deflector options, standard, gravity or. Tacky
Lol, now I don't feel so bad, about being at work, and the STO forums......:D
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Now being honest, that's just in the realm of foolish, like ******** that you can't shove a rear-wheel drive differential under the hood of a car, and have it work like it should.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I asked you once and I feel the need to ask you again: knock it off please.
You might not notice that you're not helping your problem with amal one bit, complaining about being insulted then saying "dunce" at the drop of a hat, among other things. No schoolyard "he said mean things first" game justifies this.
Just give an opinion, be ready for others to disagree, and stop taking things personal. I think amal got the message, so please do the same.
Well, I got him just fine. And I'm pretty sure you did, too. We all are playing the same game, right? Maybe you don't WANT to get him, I don't know. Back in the ethics thread you said the same about being insulted, yet once again I fail to see where you were insulted or you were denied an answer to your question. Maybe you don't take enough time to read carefully.
Just keep calm and be fair, all participants of this discussion will thank you for it
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Knowing Cryptic, if they did agree to adding a dedicated torpedo slot, you know they will take away one weapon slot to compensate, right? :rolleyes:
This to both you and sigurd, out of respect for you two, I'll back off. To the point of not even responding to him at all. But all I've gotten from him, has been insults.
And as far as him failing to answer, he most certainly did not answer my question. (most particularly, my 2nd), I had asked him, in all honesty, if there were more than the two skills he had listed, for projectile space weaponry to be roughly at max effectiveness, and all I got was a snarky, and downright insulting reply. And my whole intent, was to get a full answer, before responding, so I could respond fully, rather than half-cocked, and then get added points in AFTER I started. Better to have as much info, as possible, when trying to discuss something, correct?
But I'll give up on wasting my time with him, as at least you two, seem open to discussion, and others' opinions, as well as advancing your own. For which I thank you. Getting harder and harder to have good discussions anymore with people.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Discussions become easier with people the moment you let go of the unnecessary burden of what people said to you before and how much it bothered you. Looking at that thread, I think you said quite a bit yourself and there are no angels there.
Here, Amal contributed constructively even if he got sidetracked. And the sidetracking seems to be because, whether you intended it or not, you started dragging baggage from the ethics thread over to here. I'd rather let all arguments and opinions stand on their own weight regardless of who said them.
I'd prefer for this thread to stay on topic, for the sake of the OP.
While on one hand , yes, I think it would be good ... It would have to "instigated" in a way that people want.
I hope STO get's better ...
Just gonna leave that right there.
While a speedier torpedo certainly wouldn't be a bad thing, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to leave the firing arc of half of your weapons to fire one or that when broadside, every torpedo launcher is a wasted slot.
Whether you're stationary and firing or orbiting a target, it's at the least bothersome to have to continually point towards or away from a target to launch a torpedo. And again, unlike on an escort, at no time are all of your weapons going to be firing.
So, I asked myself, what would get me to slot a torpedo on a cruiser?
If the firing arc allowed for broadside launching. That would render a certain console obsolete though, wouldn't it?
If cruisers had a separate "torpedo tube" so I wouldn't have to give up any energy weapon slots. That would solve the slotting a torp issue. Still not sure I'd invest in Boff abilities for something that will only see sporadic use and offer little return. Then there's the CruiserScort issue.
If the damage provided by a torpedo strike was such, that it would offset the loss of one or more continually firing energy weapons. Of course, to just buff torpedoes in such a manner would simply raise escorts to a whole other level. Perhaps another cruiser command that would greatly increase torpedo cooldown time, but also greatly increase yield. Cruiserscorts would not get this command, as alpha strikes would be insane. But, then there's that thing in which cruiser commands buff allies.
Then, maybe a variation of that. Cruisers firing at a greatly reduced rate, but greatly improved yield. I don't mind having to turn in my Sci ship from broadside, because Sci powers have a longer cooldown and the benefit is worth the effort. Just ignore Cruiserscorts.
Alternatively, introduce a Torpedo modifier. The lower the turn rate, the higher the modifier. This though, would have to be fairly significant to get me to slot a torpedo over another beam. Something I doubt would be done right.
Energy vs. Torps isn't a hard decision, it's an illusion of choice.
"Being canon or being useful? Hmmmm...."
While that is true it's certainly funny considering the IP at hand. Broadsiding wasn't even a thing as most of those phaser arrays on a Starfleet ship's hull for example were auxilliary arrays that were seldom fired and mostly covered blind spots. During most of the fight only the two major arrays on for example a Galaxies saucer were used - "fore weapon" style. That means if a cruiser faces forward the beams should just do more damage and then torpedoes become "viable" again. But that's another thing to discuss...
But regarding the useless torps: I do broadside a lot and use 6 beams for that, a grav torp fore and the harg'peng aft. The latter has a long cooldown and the former mostly scores due to it's gimmick. I find it works pretty well as 8 beam arrays would drain power so much that it negates at least one beam damage wise.
But I'm no min/maxer, so this won't be a viable option for the top dogs I guess
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe add a "munitions" slot in devices. There you can equip your mines/torpedoes and use them.
Maybe have a cap of 10, and they can only be reloaded while docked at station or planet.
I'm thinking along the lines of the turrets you get when you do certain trade assignments. The turrets are equitable in a device slot, and you have just 10 of them.
Though if you have enough in inventory, you can "reload" while in combat. I haven't used them in a while, so I forget how long the cool down is on them.
Plus I think they are a"fire and forget" type of weapon. Meaning they pick their own target. So if setting up torpedoes to be an equitable device, it'd have to be coded to attack the players current target.
But then again, this feels like a "step back". As it seems many space MMOs as well as planet bound MMOs have moved away from physical ammo. Because players "complain" about the cost of the ammo, or the inventory spots it takes up.
Though I wouldn't mind having to use physical ammo, as long as it can be player made as well as purchased from a vendor. Maybe the player made version does more damage or what ever.
I don't think there should be dedicated, torpedo-only weapon slots. All our other weapon slots are universal. This would bring up the "Can we get a Beam/cannon only slot too?" kind of problems. We don't need more weapon slots on our ships.
I am in favor of reworking torpedoes. Right now they are only used in niche (B'rel/T'varo sci bombers and the like) or fun builds (check my sig). Removing/lessening shield kinetic resist, giving hull an innate 75% energy resist to match shield kinetic resist (the most evil option)or removing torpedo global CDs would be a small step for torpedoes, one giant leap for game balance.
Edit: This is why torpedoes need a general rework ^^^
However, not all torpedo-bearing ships are useless, I roll with the Hyper and Omega plasma torps fore and I pull a reliable 13k and I still lack some of the more expensive finishing touches. It's nowhere near a FAW spam Scimitar, but it's more than enough to pull my weight in PvE content.
KDF Tac: Bortasqu' Tactical
Fed Tac: Fleet Gal-X
Keep those big guns a-thunderin'
Exactly, but this is what we as players have allowed be having Launchers in the same slot as Energy Weapons. There are decidedly distinct differences that make them so they should not "fit" in the same slot.
I have suggested 250 be the stack size as in most ship layouts they t aTorpedo complement of 250+ I think this gives you plenty of time to use before a reload is needed. I like the "Munitions" idea slots aspart of a Launcher system.
If you think f this in terms of a cmtely automated loading system you would not be able to quickly switch from using Photons to Quantums in the same launcher. You would need to be out of combat to switch load types. However if you depleted your compliment you should be able to load a new stack of munitions even while in combat.
Where we can currently craft them in game I would have no issues having them continue to be crafted as long as they utilize not replicated materials. I think launcher systems should carry the buffs to the munition. That is launchers now have [Acc] [CrtH] [CrtD] [Dmg] this should change slightly as launchers could increase upto 3 areas [Acc] [CrtH] [CrtD] Rapid Firing Rate [RFR] Clustering [Clst] Wide Angle [WA] or Heavy [Hvy]. Rapid Firing Rate means that the rate of fire is faster than average systems. Clustering means that this systems deploys more than average systems. Wide Angle means the systems have a greater firig Arc than average systems. Heavy means that the launcher is capable of firing Heavy munitions. Heavy munitions are targetable, slower moving, higher yeild projectiles (i.e. tricobalt) from any source.
Munitions should be able to carry additional buff [Acc] [Dmg] [Hvy] [Crt] Anti(type) [At]
IMO Torp boats are a farce of STO. I do regret that inacting something like this would hinder someones preffered style of play, but no ship in Trek has ever only carried projectile weapon systems.
Most T-boats I see however, are PvP "shadow strikers" who hide behind a cloak and launching torps or dropping mines never uncloaking to fight proper. If you feel I am insulting your honor as a Warrior maybe you should leave house Duras!
Beam Boats however really would be unaffected with adding launcher slots. Add them or not you wouldn't need to use them and you would still have your energy weapons.
I second this opinion, while assuming someone will say "ah-HA! Beams weren't mentioned so this guy is super wrong!"
This "make hard decisions" thing is a false statement, because the decision was already made long ago, and a lot of the resistance to the idea seems to be from the point of view of "I got mine, my build is optimal, and TRIBBLE everybody else who wants to play any way other than this optimal build."
As a side thing, I think if all beam arrays were made to stack on a single shot, not changing the damage output but just the visual effect, it would also feel more Trek.
"Fire at Will" could remain a scattering spread, but generally in Trek the arrays focus all energy in one direction, which looks better anyway. That's beyond the scope of this thread but still an improvement.
There's a problem with the "leave it be, just buff them" mindset:
It can go too far, and I'm not selfish and petty enough to think that's a good thing.
I'd hate for this forum, and the game, to have the attitude of "if you don't like using torpedoes don't use them" from smug dismissive people, forcing rather exact min-max builds on people that absolutely require them, and presumably in some un-Trek way to boot (imaginations can run wild here, at what optimal could be in the future).
By dividing loadouts, it simutaneously makes the decisions multi-faceted without simply calling in a new min-max thing.
I also support the notion of having a dedicated torpedo slot and limited ammo for it. In fact, I think every ship should have specific hardpoints for certain weapons and distributing them among all sides of the ship makes sense. The arc of each weapon should be determined by where they are placed. Front weapons have the widest arc, while the sides would have the second largest, and the aft section would have the smallest arc. Ships capable of mounting DC's (e.g. escorts and BoP) should only have fore and aft arcs with fore torpedoes and aft mines. Cruisers should have all four arcs with multiple fore and aft torpedoes/mines. Science vessels should have a triad of arcs with its least effective facings being the the sides of the aft section and the fore section which will be supplemented by one torpedo launcher each.
Especially if torpedoes were actually useful and worth adding skillpoints for, I'd be fine with an ammunition mechanic. Thing is the more things are proposed to change, the more people will resist it. Gamer culture is that way.
Another aspect of why I'm against, a notable proponent of it, will bear little to no discussion of it, if it doesn't agree with his proposal, he tends to refer to said opponents, as "you got yours" type of people, along with worse.
I think there are FAR better ways to improve customization. Adding beam turrets. Making starboard & port weapon slots, along with reducing weapon arcs, to balance out the fact that you could now mount weapons on either side.
And there's tons of other ideas, that I am sure that could be brought out, that would work far better than locking up slots for just 1 type of weapon, or adding more slots gratuitously.
I welcome discussion, just keep it to a dull roar please.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Merge is imminent...
I'm for the torpedo slot. I miss using torps but not enough to take a 5k dps hit
My PvE/PvP hybrid skill tree
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"