So, in a 60 sec sustained engagement, C:SV can be used four times, with three volleys per use, striking up to three targets per shot, for a maximum of 144 hits per weapon (using non-heavy cannons) from C:SV.
B:FAW
Beams have lower dropoff
Best damage beams have second worst arc in the game, worst damage beams have best arc in the game
Ens I, Lt II, LtC III
Modifies your attacks for 10 secs
Adds one additional shot per volley and minor damage increase
Target up to two targets in arc, for each shot
Interruptible by position/range and arc (with arc only interrupting individual weapons)
So, in a 60 sec sustained engagement, B:FAW can be used three times, with two volleys per use, striking up to two targets per shot, for a maximum of 60 hits per weapon (there are no heavy beams as of yet) from B:FAW.
So where does B:FAW get its advantage over C:SV?
Weapon-type due to dropoff
Seating requirements
Better against single targets thanks to the additional shot per volley
Better against paired targets thanks to the additional shot and up to two targets
Better against area targets thanks to auto-targeting and unrestricted AoE
And where is it simply different?
Targeting
B:FAW shoots at anything in arc, but B:FAW shoots at anything in arc
You target via actual target designation using C:SV, gaining a cone AoE
So where does C:SV get its advantage over B:FAW?
Improved uptime for longer engagements/slugfests
More easily interruptible (were there enemy NPC's with FBP that could actually kill you... or AP:D to debuff you... like players do. Hint hint )
Better against clustered/grouped targets thanks to the cannon firing cycles and up to three targets
Maybe...
The biggest issue with B:FAW, if you're looking for a "fix", is the seating requirements and dropoff. The simplest "fix" would be to simply remove the "B:" and "C:" aspects of both abilities and allow for cannons to Fire-at-Will (poor Riker) and beams to scatter volley (DBBs would be great for that). Alternatively (or even additionally), seating requirements could be re-grouped by single vs. AoE rather than underlying weapon type; single target abilities could go into Ens/Lt/LtC while AoE could be placed into Lt/LtC/Cmdr seating. Making all weapons experience the same dropoff would also help; the biggest problem with C:SV is that you have to be close to do damage, but the closer to the tip of a cone AoE you get the more AoE you lose, eliminating most of the benefit of C:SV. Equal dropoffs would make the damage vs arc continuum (DC/DHC>DBB/Torp>SC>BA>Omni/Turret) a bit more balanced. Adjusting Omnis so that they do Turret damage but don't lose a [Mod] would help too, since _/2 and _/3 payloads don't really give up much forward firepower anymore when running beams.
Those are just my thoughts on the subject... I think a direct nerf would be silly given the preexisting liabilities of B:FAW, but adjusting several of the related mechanics would be a help.
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
Hiliarous how pve heroes argue about faw and cannons when most of them doesnt even know what cannon is and how it works looking at the specifics and comparision they make.
First of all (like i said earlier)
Faw is on similar power lvl like CSV, and buffing one or nerfing other ability has no reason or meaning at all.
The problem is game mechanics and weapon them selfs (as 99% of pve heroes doesnt understand).
First of all Cannons fire all in the same time = more spike dmg then beams and that was the intent of them that no one seems to notice that LOL, for way higher drop off dmg, lower arc, lower proc rates on crf/csv vs faw (via dmg aplications). It was in time that lesser mobs were delated instantly via the higher burst.
Beams have higher dmg over range, way higher arc's, partly reduced power drain via weapon firing systems (they all dont fire in the same time), more proc rates on faw.
Yes it is mostly decided by weapon firing cycle.
Cannons mostly outdps beams in their low firing arc - or that was the general rule till the nerfs.
You remembe the times when cannons were op, and everything that werent capable of using them (even cruisers) was seen as handicap?.
What lead to cannon weapons perma nerfs in last 3 years BEAM OVERLOAD ability.
Faw itself is ok, as its as effective as CSV via stat wise.
The problem is that beams have to little dmg drop off over range (or cannons to high), and beam overload ability that was so buffed in early days that it was OP in pvp when it was as popular as pve in early seasons when KDF side was released.
And sadly stupid devs didnt noticed the problem with BO3 killing ships in 1 shot, but they though that: hey its not problem that BO3 hits for 50-70k in mk 12 very rare gear, it as a problem that cannons on CRF did half of that in 1 cycle.
Currently we see that ships with pure cannons (excluding the lag that makes cannons not shoot at all) cant kill practicly nothing as it isnt abilities fault (beam or cannon) but the stats of cannon weapons that have almost no spike, to breach the current defences as they were overnerfed because of BO3's spike power.
So playing with faw wont change anything as cannons were just overnerfed while BO3 is to powerfull of a spike (and useless for pve).
The first intent desing was cannons for spike weapons with lower arc's but more dps if you can keep target in arc, and beams for aoe spam and relative dps if your not to agile. But ty to feddie's crying constantly for years, to get more spike to their ships and more dps as cannons were superior pvp wise in the time (as fed players cry whole time to get all stuff exept for trying to build their ships properly and use their advantage).
Cryptic heard them and cannons were overnerfed where BO3 was made way to powerfull (and now cannon build escorts base mostly around BO3 alone for spike and minor pressure from cannons).
Cryptic wont buff cannons (and wont nerf faw) why you ask? as they are happy ppl use 1 weapon type so its easier to manage everything, and even if they dont give a ship about pvp (specially when you can have 58s of alldmg immunity and invinviblity per 64s time span on pilot ships - without any gear to it) they wont change the current balance though.
Just like they dont care cannons practicly dont shoot from 6-7 months and torps with the new lag increasing abilities/graphics added.
Ofc it would be easy to add a little dmg stats to make cannons more viable via pve and pvp in the same time (by nerfing Beam Overload ability) but that is to much of a change that cryptic in last years would allow (and i dont think that they can actually even do enough math to count how much they should buff cannons stat wise).
And YES THATS WHY YOU CANT BUFF/NERF FAW vs CSV as an ability to energy weapon should have similar stats to its counterpart if they have the same targeted use pattern, but it is just beams being to powerfull or cannons to weak (pick one)
My problem with BFaW is that Beam Overload was nerfed hard as part of the Dev's attempt to "level the playing field" in PvP (as you may remember, a decloak-Beam Overload was absolutely lethal on a BoP).
Even though it auto-crits now, it's damage is mediocre and it is not in parity with BFaW.
What may help bring BO more in line with BFaW is to bring back the BO Double Tap and it's old damage table.
It needs to be lethal again.
Except the thing is Beam Overload was never really useful in PvE...ever...even CRF is more useful in PvE then BO...double tap still exists...and even with double tap no one ever used it in PvE.
Hiliarous how pve heroes argue about faw and cannons when most of them doesnt even know what cannon is and how it works looking at the specifics and comparision they make.
First of all (like i said earlier)
Faw is on similar power lvl like CSV, and buffing one or nerfing other ability has no reason or meaning at all.
The problem is game mechanics and weapon them selfs (as 99% of pve heroes doesnt understand).
First of all Cannons fire all in the same time = more spike dmg then beams and that was the intent of them that no one seems to notice that LOL, for way higher drop off dmg, lower arc, lower proc rates on crf/csv vs faw (via dmg aplications). It was in time that lesser mobs were delated instantly via the higher burst.
Beams have higher dmg over range, way higher arc's, partly reduced power drain via weapon firing systems (they all dont fire in the same time), more proc rates on faw.
Yes it is mostly decided by weapon firing cycle.
Cannons mostly outdps beams in their low firing arc - or that was the general rule till the nerfs.
You remembe the times when cannons were op, and everything that werent capable of using them (even cruisers) was seen as handicap?.
What lead to cannon weapons perma nerfs in last 3 years BEAM OVERLOAD ability.
Faw itself is ok, as its as effective as CSV via stat wise.
The problem is that beams have to little dmg drop off over range (or cannons to high), and beam overload ability that was so buffed in early days that it was OP in pvp when it was as popular as pve in early seasons when KDF side was released.
And sadly stupid devs didnt noticed the problem with BO3 killing ships in 1 shot, but they though that: hey its not problem that BO3 hits for 50-70k in mk 12 very rare gear, it as a problem that cannons on CRF did half of that in 1 cycle.
Currently we see that ships with pure cannons (excluding the lag that makes cannons not shoot at all) cant kill practicly nothing as it isnt abilities fault (beam or cannon) but the stats of cannon weapons that have almost no spike, to breach the current defences as they were overnerfed because of BO3's spike power.
So playing with faw wont change anything as cannons were just overnerfed while BO3 is to powerfull of a spike (and useless for pve).
The first intent desing was cannons for spike weapons with lower arc's but more dps if you can keep target in arc, and beams for aoe spam and relative dps if your not to agile. But ty to feddie's crying constantly for years, to get more spike to their ships and more dps as cannons were superior pvp wise in the time (as fed players cry whole time to get all stuff exept for trying to build their ships properly and use their advantage).
Cryptic heard them and cannons were overnerfed where BO3 was made way to powerfull (and now cannon build escorts base mostly around BO3 alone for spike and minor pressure from cannons).
Cryptic wont buff cannons (and wont nerf faw) why you ask? as they are happy ppl use 1 weapon type so its easier to manage everything, and even if they dont give a ship about pvp (specially when you can have 58s of alldmg immunity and invinviblity per 64s time span on pilot ships - without any gear to it) they wont change the current balance though.
Just like they dont care cannons practicly dont shoot from 6-7 months and torps with the new lag increasing abilities/graphics added.
Ofc it would be easy to add a little dmg stats to make cannons more viable via pve and pvp in the same time (by nerfing Beam Overload ability) but that is to much of a change that cryptic in last years would allow (and i dont think that they can actually even do enough math to count how much they should buff cannons stat wise).
And YES THATS WHY YOU CANT BUFF/NERF FAW vs CSV as an ability to energy weapon should have similar stats to its counterpart if they have the same targeted use pattern, but it is just beams being to powerfull or cannons to weak (pick one)
I'm sorry...I stopped reading after you claimed FaW and CSV are on similar power levels.
They're not...not by a long shot...and I don't get why people are suddenly bringing up BO...BO has nothing to do with this...people don't really use BO much in PvE...they didn't back then and they don't now.
FaW hits all targets in a 10k 360 degree bubble (Lets face it single or DBB...both have access to 360 degree weapons)...CSF hits 3 targets in a 45 degree ark...that alone says they're no where near the same power.
lianthelia is probably referring to DPS trolls in STF's.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Again I'm hard pressed to disagree with you, OP. You failed to mention that BFAW works where it really shouldn't. Aft beams are blazing even with the primary target dead ahead. If there's a secondary target in back, it's getting shot. the ability should only be so confined that as long as primary and an eligible secondary target are in a given arc on a given weapon, they both get shot. If not, logically noone gets shot from that particular gun. Easy enough even to work around.
A 3 month forum riot just for removing the BFAW crits? That's a lot of squealing for a very slight nerf.
Again I'm hard pressed to disagree with you, OP. You failed to mention that BFAW works where it really shouldn't. Aft beams are blazing even with the primary target dead ahead. If there's a secondary target in back, it's getting shot. the ability should only be so confined that as long as primary and an eligible secondary target are in a given arc on a given weapon, they both get shot. If not, logically noone gets shot from that particular gun. Easy enough even to work around.
A 3 month forum riot just for removing the BFAW crits? That's a lot of squealing for a very slight nerf.
And Id argue the rioting wouldnt be as bad as we've seen them in the past over other issues. Not like Cryptic wouldnt be able to weather that storm as they have with others.
The real problem may lie in development philosophy though. For a single-player shooter, focused on single-player PvE as a design paradigm, where teamwork isn't even a remote consideration but the requirement to make engagement as easy as possible, BFAW in it's present form, with all hte overcapping nonsense makes sense. Basically it's designed to make a single player, a casual single player who doesn't want to have to rely on teamwork, feel powerful.
The trinity was dead from the get go thanks to being able to slot tac, engi, and sci in any ship. Hence Escorts Online up until the devs showered cruisers with enough power to make beam drain a joke and even up the numbers. If you can fly through TFs in what was supposed to be a glass cannon, then why even bother with tank and support builds?
The problem is if the game is allegedly for multiple players, possibly working together in a team. At that point, and in that situation, it's grossly overpowered compared to anything else you can slot in those areas (minus Tac team-but only if you're doing what most Players don't do and won't touch.)
Teamwork died with the trinity. Once you could make every ship capable of tanking and supporting itself, why bother with teamwork? Just shout at the other guy to l2p and start carrying their weight n00b.
The desire to make that crowd happy, has resulted, perhaps inadvertently, in a meta where there is "Won True Build", a specific formula guaranteed to deliver at least moderate success to the unskilled, and massive success to the skilled and geared if they pursue it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of MMOs.
Perfect balance, especially perfect balance when much power is given to the player in character building, is impossible.
Thus there will always be an optimal build.
There may be many viable builds, but the optimal build will be the one that is proclaimed to aspire.
Thus the optimal build will become popular, and dissenters will inevitably abhor.
So it has been done before, so it shall be again. Amen.
with BFAW, positioning and piloting have very little, if anything at all, to do with how well you do-instead, it's purely random number generation and being in range to trigger it..and with the architecture of beams, that in turn means an RNG that has the odds slanted.
Um, yeah. No.
As an intel beam pilot, my goal is to keep my ship within 2km of the target first, within the target's flank second, and in the same shield arc third if possible. That's how I maximize my damage and become credit to team. BFAW is a nice ability that potentially tosses all that aside by sending off phaser bursts towards scrubby fighters 9km away. I can aim my ship to make best use of FAW by centering myself in an AOE environment, but that's pilot skill there as well.
Saying that FAW is easy mode neglects that even FAW requires skill to make the most use out of it.
I think the objection is that the most effective builds* are currently focused around BFAW with (dual?) beams, and instead there should be both similar potent beam and cannon builds (possibly with or without torpedoes or mines.)
*) including the ability to use it well. A great build with a player that doesn't know how to use it can still underperform.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Remember, skill in this game means making sure you bind everything to the space bar.
That's what separates the skilled players from the point and click noobs, or the ones fumbling with ctrl and alt.
Bind to spacebar, hit spacebar, spacebar, spacebar, spacebar, turn, spacebar spacebar spacebar spacebar turn, and don't forget the need for multitasking so you can finish your netflix watching...not that you'll be watching much, since the STF is over.
So you both don't actually PvE, just repeat the same tired old filthy casual hurr durr. Well OK then.
One simple thought: Why does BFAW come with a base increase in damage? That doesn't make snese, it's a point defense/aggro generator ability. Make it hit multipletargets but remove the + in damage, bcause there's no reason it should have thaat over targeted precision attacks.
Soo much truth in this. In fact, it should have a drop-off of dmg as more targets are hitted. In most MMOs, medieval ones for example for spear/pole weapons users, an AoE with allmost 360 degree is balanced like this: first target hit gets 100%, the next -10% or-15% so 90% or 85% of the initial attack and so on. And its logical too since the power/energy of the swing is gradualy lost as hitting enemies. Something similar could apply here.
Welcome to the wonderful world of MMOs.
Perfect balance, especially perfect balance when much power is given to the player in character building, is impossible.
Thus there will always be an optimal build.
There may be many viable builds, but the optimal build will be the one that is proclaimed to aspire.
Thus the optimal build will become popular, and dissenters will inevitably abhor.
So it has been done before, so it shall be again. Amen.
As an intel beam pilot, my goal is to keep my ship within 2km of the target first, within the target's flank second, and in the same shield arc third if possible. That's how I maximize my damage and become credit to team. BFAW is a nice ability that potentially tosses all that aside by sending off phaser bursts towards scrubby fighters 9km away. I can aim my ship to make best use of FAW by centering myself in an AOE environment, but that's pilot skill there as well.
Saying that FAW is easy mode neglects that even FAW requires skill to make the most use out of it.
Aaa, but there is the thing. When optimal build is exceding by 2-3 times the damage of the other builds then its cleary something wrong.
Remember, skill in this game means making sure you bind everything to the space bar.
That's what separates the skilled players from the point and click noobs, or the ones fumbling with ctrl and alt.
So, what would you classify a player(s), that use 4 sets of inputs?
1: Primary Tac skills bound to spacebar
2: All Eng skills/Sci skills/Captain skills/Active abilities,skills,consoles as point and click ALT & CTRL & Shift powers, while using number keys 1-0 for skills in those boxes
3: Shield auto distribution macroed to mouse
4: Power subsystem diversion macroed to voice commands
I like an overall user experience, to make me feel I am an actual participant in combat!
To fix FAW they need to add the feature -20 CRTH. By definition you aren't aiming and are just blasting away at anything you can hit. If you lower it's chance to Crit it makes in game sense and would balance the power. Also cannons need to have the damage drop off adjusted to be more balanced and viable. That's it. All it takes.
I think the question of whether BFAW requires skill or not really depends on how you're using it. I have an oddball build on my Dromias whereby it can serve both the cruiser and science roles (the "snot bubble" console makes up for not having GW III), and I can tell you that if you're doing both CC stuff and BFAW, it really behooves you to watch how you maneuver lest you bunch up a lot of angry, immobile targets that hammer down one shield facing while you aren't paying attention. Granted, I have more hull that they can run through on the Dromias should I have that happen, but if the wrong enemy crits me at a time like that, I'm in trouble.
Also I have still found situations where I can actually use BFAW as intended, particularly in the Undine Battlezone at the Romulan control points (most of all at the Romulan Planetkiller takedown), where I'm able to pull a lot of aggro from the Undine mobs and keep a fair number of them from reaching the other players who are trying to move the singularity into position. But that's the only build of mine that I would say has a real, heavy reliance on BFAW, and it's not to run up numbers in an STF for the heck of it. It's because it actually makes sense for the ship. (And if you want to talk attention to detail, I even made sure it has all Fluidic Antiprotons to mirror the STO-canon ship's behavior as closely as possible.)
But that's my only ship build that truly relies on BFAW. (My Reman has it, too, but I'm not sold on keeping it because she can't handle the degree of aggro that Alyosha can in his Dromias.) I play what I want to play, what fits my stories, and what I feel fits the ship and its captain, even if it's not the "best" and "most DPS-optimized" build.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Soo much truth in this. In fact, it should have a drop-off of dmg as more targets are hitted. In most MMOs, medieval ones for example for spear/pole weapons users, an AoE with allmost 360 degree is balanced like this: first target hit gets 100%, the next -10% or-15% so 90% or 85% of the initial attack and so on. And its logical too since the power/energy of the swing is gradualy lost as hitting enemies. Something similar could apply here.
360 degrees happens only in a ideal situation. Or spending so much time in easy STFs in mission wherein players are overqualified. If you go further to harder elites wherein mobs hit harder like NPCs hitting as much 3M+ per one shot, you just cannot do 360 degrees BFAW. That means you have to pull 1 or 2 NPC.
Aaa, but there is the thing. When optimal build is exceding by 2-3 times the damage of the other builds then its cleary something wrong.
The situation your stating only happens on an ideal situation meant for normal skilled level difficulty players.
If you want stuff harder or more balance you get out of the the casual/normal skill level of difficulty like ISA. Why is it so difficult for players who complain about BFAW realize this that balance for other platforms is about playing type mission/STF?
ISA = optimize for BFAW, meant for normal level skilled players, Most NPCs dont shoot back nor shoot hard.
The only (and I really mean only) time you don't want to use it is in top level Elite queues (like HSE) where pulling more than one enemy isn't advantageous.
Every other time, FAW is the answer.
Need spam cleared?
More than one enemy?
Enemies spread out?
Just one target?
Soo much truth in this. In fact, it should have a drop-off of dmg as more targets are hitted. In most MMOs, medieval ones for example for spear/pole weapons users, an AoE with allmost 360 degree is balanced like this: first target hit gets 100%, the next -10% or-15% so 90% or 85% of the initial attack and so on. And its logical too since the power/energy of the swing is gradualy lost as hitting enemies. Something similar could apply here.
360 degrees happens only in a ideal situation. Or spending so much time in easy STFs in mission wherein players are overqualified. If you go further to harder elites wherein mobs hit harder like NPCs hitting as much 3M+ per one shot, you just cannot do 360 degrees BFAW. That means you have to pull 1 or 2 NPC.
Aaa, but there is the thing. When optimal build is exceding by 2-3 times the damage of the other builds then its cleary something wrong.
The situation your stating only happens on an ideal situation meant for normal skilled level difficulty players.
If you want stuff harder or more balance you get out of the the casual/normal skill level of difficulty like ISA. Why is it so difficult for players who complain about BFAW realize this that balance for other platforms is about playing type mission/STF?
ISA = optimize for BFAW, meant for normal level skilled players, Most NPCs dont shoot back nor shoot hard.
Man you are really funny. Wouldnt even wanted to reply to your non-sense and self-delusions and probably I'll igonre you from now on.
But here its a thing. If you wanna back up your claim that your are an elite player as you claim to be and this whole matter is about player skill and not about imbalance, then you take 4 of your DPS friends on Trible and complete HSE with 5 DHC escorts using 5 non-rom and non-tacs toons. If you cant do it then shut the hell up since you cleary have noo idea what are you talking about. And just rabling non-sense does make you look like a fool you know, no offence there.
Man you are really funny. Wouldnt even wanted to reply to your non-sense and self-delusions and probably I'll igonre you from now on.
But here its a thing. If you wanna back up your claim that your are an elite player as you claim to be and this whole matter is about player skill and not about imbalance, then you take 4 of your DPS friends on Trible and complete HSE with 5 DHC escorts using 5 non-rom and non-tacs toons. If you cant do it then shut the hell up since you cleary have noo idea what are you talking about. And just rabling non-sense does make you look like a fool you know, no offence there.
Why do want all to have 5 cannon escorts in HSE?
Like keep on saying, certain platforms are better than others in certain missions/certain specialities. It is no different in HSE and ISA.
Why should I force myself to use cannons and other players I play with to use cannons in HSE when I can use Torps for dps or beams for tanks which are better in that mission and those specific roles on?
Which proves my point I was making, you dont force yourself by forcing other platforms in mission it was meant for or optimize for. For example optimized ISA DPS, I bring beams. In optimized CCA DPS, I bring torps/kinetic/physical.
Now if you want to know where cannons lies in ISA or if it is viable, before ico set it was in 80-100k. there is even a video of player doing it 80k+ live. An FPER should do around 100-150k+ in cannons due to the nadeon bomb. Those stats are overkill for all advance queues.
Now can you say that those complaining and whining about cannons in all thread have done that in cannons in ISA? Or are those complaining not even capable of doing half of that DPS? It is no different from players using beams complaining that beams are weak but are only doing 5k DPS in ISA in the current mechanics.
I am not saying it does need to be fixed to WAI stage. But you should get my point that the main complainers of cannons are usually those players not doing optimal cannon runs/builds which most of their problems are based on player skill. Nor it is apple to apple comparison when you are comparing the optimal DPS runs/builds/pilots using beams then compare it with your personal cannon DPS/someone else cannon DPS which isnt even optimal nor the best pilot skill/build in PvE.
Delete Plasmonic Leech and all leech-like affects from the game, and then tell me how powerful FaW is....
Marsh it was one of the stuff I was rationalizing in different threads of BFAW. Power management is what makes beams very powerful. But cryptic is going in the different direction. It released, astika, nandi, arbiter which contains traits that helps energy power management and actually is the opposite of taking out plasmonic leech.
Comments
C:SV
So, in a 60 sec sustained engagement, C:SV can be used four times, with three volleys per use, striking up to three targets per shot, for a maximum of 144 hits per weapon (using non-heavy cannons) from C:SV.
B:FAW
So, in a 60 sec sustained engagement, B:FAW can be used three times, with two volleys per use, striking up to two targets per shot, for a maximum of 60 hits per weapon (there are no heavy beams as of yet) from B:FAW.
So where does B:FAW get its advantage over C:SV?
And where is it simply different?
So where does C:SV get its advantage over B:FAW?
Maybe...
The biggest issue with B:FAW, if you're looking for a "fix", is the seating requirements and dropoff. The simplest "fix" would be to simply remove the "B:" and "C:" aspects of both abilities and allow for cannons to Fire-at-Will (poor Riker) and beams to scatter volley (DBBs would be great for that). Alternatively (or even additionally), seating requirements could be re-grouped by single vs. AoE rather than underlying weapon type; single target abilities could go into Ens/Lt/LtC while AoE could be placed into Lt/LtC/Cmdr seating. Making all weapons experience the same dropoff would also help; the biggest problem with C:SV is that you have to be close to do damage, but the closer to the tip of a cone AoE you get the more AoE you lose, eliminating most of the benefit of C:SV. Equal dropoffs would make the damage vs arc continuum (DC/DHC>DBB/Torp>SC>BA>Omni/Turret) a bit more balanced. Adjusting Omnis so that they do Turret damage but don't lose a [Mod] would help too, since _/2 and _/3 payloads don't really give up much forward firepower anymore when running beams.
Those are just my thoughts on the subject... I think a direct nerf would be silly given the preexisting liabilities of B:FAW, but adjusting several of the related mechanics would be a help.
First of all (like i said earlier)
Faw is on similar power lvl like CSV, and buffing one or nerfing other ability has no reason or meaning at all.
The problem is game mechanics and weapon them selfs (as 99% of pve heroes doesnt understand).
First of all Cannons fire all in the same time = more spike dmg then beams and that was the intent of them that no one seems to notice that LOL, for way higher drop off dmg, lower arc, lower proc rates on crf/csv vs faw (via dmg aplications). It was in time that lesser mobs were delated instantly via the higher burst.
Beams have higher dmg over range, way higher arc's, partly reduced power drain via weapon firing systems (they all dont fire in the same time), more proc rates on faw.
Yes it is mostly decided by weapon firing cycle.
Cannons mostly outdps beams in their low firing arc - or that was the general rule till the nerfs.
You remembe the times when cannons were op, and everything that werent capable of using them (even cruisers) was seen as handicap?.
What lead to cannon weapons perma nerfs in last 3 years BEAM OVERLOAD ability.
Faw itself is ok, as its as effective as CSV via stat wise.
The problem is that beams have to little dmg drop off over range (or cannons to high), and beam overload ability that was so buffed in early days that it was OP in pvp when it was as popular as pve in early seasons when KDF side was released.
And sadly stupid devs didnt noticed the problem with BO3 killing ships in 1 shot, but they though that: hey its not problem that BO3 hits for 50-70k in mk 12 very rare gear, it as a problem that cannons on CRF did half of that in 1 cycle.
Currently we see that ships with pure cannons (excluding the lag that makes cannons not shoot at all) cant kill practicly nothing as it isnt abilities fault (beam or cannon) but the stats of cannon weapons that have almost no spike, to breach the current defences as they were overnerfed because of BO3's spike power.
So playing with faw wont change anything as cannons were just overnerfed while BO3 is to powerfull of a spike (and useless for pve).
The first intent desing was cannons for spike weapons with lower arc's but more dps if you can keep target in arc, and beams for aoe spam and relative dps if your not to agile. But ty to feddie's crying constantly for years, to get more spike to their ships and more dps as cannons were superior pvp wise in the time (as fed players cry whole time to get all stuff exept for trying to build their ships properly and use their advantage).
Cryptic heard them and cannons were overnerfed where BO3 was made way to powerfull (and now cannon build escorts base mostly around BO3 alone for spike and minor pressure from cannons).
Cryptic wont buff cannons (and wont nerf faw) why you ask? as they are happy ppl use 1 weapon type so its easier to manage everything, and even if they dont give a ship about pvp (specially when you can have 58s of alldmg immunity and invinviblity per 64s time span on pilot ships - without any gear to it) they wont change the current balance though.
Just like they dont care cannons practicly dont shoot from 6-7 months and torps with the new lag increasing abilities/graphics added.
Ofc it would be easy to add a little dmg stats to make cannons more viable via pve and pvp in the same time (by nerfing Beam Overload ability) but that is to much of a change that cryptic in last years would allow (and i dont think that they can actually even do enough math to count how much they should buff cannons stat wise).
And YES THATS WHY YOU CANT BUFF/NERF FAW vs CSV as an ability to energy weapon should have similar stats to its counterpart if they have the same targeted use pattern, but it is just beams being to powerfull or cannons to weak (pick one)
Except the thing is Beam Overload was never really useful in PvE...ever...even CRF is more useful in PvE then BO...double tap still exists...and even with double tap no one ever used it in PvE.
I'm sorry...I stopped reading after you claimed FaW and CSV are on similar power levels.
They're not...not by a long shot...and I don't get why people are suddenly bringing up BO...BO has nothing to do with this...people don't really use BO much in PvE...they didn't back then and they don't now.
FaW hits all targets in a 10k 360 degree bubble (Lets face it single or DBB...both have access to 360 degree weapons)...CSF hits 3 targets in a 45 degree ark...that alone says they're no where near the same power.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
A 3 month forum riot just for removing the BFAW crits? That's a lot of squealing for a very slight nerf.
And Id argue the rioting wouldnt be as bad as we've seen them in the past over other issues. Not like Cryptic wouldnt be able to weather that storm as they have with others.
The trinity was dead from the get go thanks to being able to slot tac, engi, and sci in any ship. Hence Escorts Online up until the devs showered cruisers with enough power to make beam drain a joke and even up the numbers. If you can fly through TFs in what was supposed to be a glass cannon, then why even bother with tank and support builds?
Teamwork died with the trinity. Once you could make every ship capable of tanking and supporting itself, why bother with teamwork? Just shout at the other guy to l2p and start carrying their weight n00b.
Welcome to the wonderful world of MMOs.
Perfect balance, especially perfect balance when much power is given to the player in character building, is impossible.
Thus there will always be an optimal build.
There may be many viable builds, but the optimal build will be the one that is proclaimed to aspire.
Thus the optimal build will become popular, and dissenters will inevitably abhor.
So it has been done before, so it shall be again. Amen.
Um, yeah. No.
As an intel beam pilot, my goal is to keep my ship within 2km of the target first, within the target's flank second, and in the same shield arc third if possible. That's how I maximize my damage and become credit to team. BFAW is a nice ability that potentially tosses all that aside by sending off phaser bursts towards scrubby fighters 9km away. I can aim my ship to make best use of FAW by centering myself in an AOE environment, but that's pilot skill there as well.
Saying that FAW is easy mode neglects that even FAW requires skill to make the most use out of it.
*) including the ability to use it well. A great build with a player that doesn't know how to use it can still underperform.
So you both don't actually PvE, just repeat the same tired old filthy casual hurr durr. Well OK then.
Aaa, but there is the thing. When optimal build is exceding by 2-3 times the damage of the other builds then its cleary something wrong.
So, what would you classify a player(s), that use 4 sets of inputs?
1: Primary Tac skills bound to spacebar
2: All Eng skills/Sci skills/Captain skills/Active abilities,skills,consoles as point and click ALT & CTRL & Shift powers, while using number keys 1-0 for skills in those boxes
3: Shield auto distribution macroed to mouse
4: Power subsystem diversion macroed to voice commands
I like an overall user experience, to make me feel I am an actual participant in combat!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Also I have still found situations where I can actually use BFAW as intended, particularly in the Undine Battlezone at the Romulan control points (most of all at the Romulan Planetkiller takedown), where I'm able to pull a lot of aggro from the Undine mobs and keep a fair number of them from reaching the other players who are trying to move the singularity into position. But that's the only build of mine that I would say has a real, heavy reliance on BFAW, and it's not to run up numbers in an STF for the heck of it. It's because it actually makes sense for the ship. (And if you want to talk attention to detail, I even made sure it has all Fluidic Antiprotons to mirror the STO-canon ship's behavior as closely as possible.)
But that's my only ship build that truly relies on BFAW. (My Reman has it, too, but I'm not sold on keeping it because she can't handle the degree of aggro that Alyosha can in his Dromias.) I play what I want to play, what fits my stories, and what I feel fits the ship and its captain, even if it's not the "best" and "most DPS-optimized" build.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
360 degrees happens only in a ideal situation. Or spending so much time in easy STFs in mission wherein players are overqualified. If you go further to harder elites wherein mobs hit harder like NPCs hitting as much 3M+ per one shot, you just cannot do 360 degrees BFAW. That means you have to pull 1 or 2 NPC.
The situation your stating only happens on an ideal situation meant for normal skilled level difficulty players.
If you want stuff harder or more balance you get out of the the casual/normal skill level of difficulty like ISA. Why is it so difficult for players who complain about BFAW realize this that balance for other platforms is about playing type mission/STF?
ISA = optimize for BFAW, meant for normal level skilled players, Most NPCs dont shoot back nor shoot hard.
It does everything - there are no downsides.
The only (and I really mean only) time you don't want to use it is in top level Elite queues (like HSE) where pulling more than one enemy isn't advantageous.
Every other time, FAW is the answer.
Need spam cleared?
More than one enemy?
Enemies spread out?
Just one target?
FAW is your go to.
Man you are really funny. Wouldnt even wanted to reply to your non-sense and self-delusions and probably I'll igonre you from now on.
But here its a thing. If you wanna back up your claim that your are an elite player as you claim to be and this whole matter is about player skill and not about imbalance, then you take 4 of your DPS friends on Trible and complete HSE with 5 DHC escorts using 5 non-rom and non-tacs toons. If you cant do it then shut the hell up since you cleary have noo idea what are you talking about. And just rabling non-sense does make you look like a fool you know, no offence there.
Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
"A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
Still darn potent IMO, as used it to great effect without such benefits you listed!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Why do want all to have 5 cannon escorts in HSE?
Like keep on saying, certain platforms are better than others in certain missions/certain specialities. It is no different in HSE and ISA.
Why should I force myself to use cannons and other players I play with to use cannons in HSE when I can use Torps for dps or beams for tanks which are better in that mission and those specific roles on?
Which proves my point I was making, you dont force yourself by forcing other platforms in mission it was meant for or optimize for. For example optimized ISA DPS, I bring beams. In optimized CCA DPS, I bring torps/kinetic/physical.
Now if you want to know where cannons lies in ISA or if it is viable, before ico set it was in 80-100k. there is even a video of player doing it 80k+ live. An FPER should do around 100-150k+ in cannons due to the nadeon bomb. Those stats are overkill for all advance queues.
Now can you say that those complaining and whining about cannons in all thread have done that in cannons in ISA? Or are those complaining not even capable of doing half of that DPS? It is no different from players using beams complaining that beams are weak but are only doing 5k DPS in ISA in the current mechanics.
I am not saying it does need to be fixed to WAI stage. But you should get my point that the main complainers of cannons are usually those players not doing optimal cannon runs/builds which most of their problems are based on player skill. Nor it is apple to apple comparison when you are comparing the optimal DPS runs/builds/pilots using beams then compare it with your personal cannon DPS/someone else cannon DPS which isnt even optimal nor the best pilot skill/build in PvE.
Marsh it was one of the stuff I was rationalizing in different threads of BFAW. Power management is what makes beams very powerful. But cryptic is going in the different direction. It released, astika, nandi, arbiter which contains traits that helps energy power management and actually is the opposite of taking out plasmonic leech.