To suggest that the current way of doing things is the best if not the only way things could be done, just because it's the current way of doing things, is pure Appeal to Tradition.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't make "was it there yesterday" the deciding question whether a given rule is good or not today. There are existing rules that are bad and should be removed, as well as non-existing rules that could well be good.
Nevermind the thread isn't even about anybody "liking" a particular build style but rather the OP's (most likely mistaken) belief that requiring DPSers to pack torpedoes would weaken them.
If you really want to get into logical fallacies then the original post calling for limits to player options is actually a type of Bandwagon fallacy. "I don't like using all beam builds and it needs to be restricted because you shouldn't like it either," is essentially what it boils down to. Folks are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it holds no weight in reality. Secondly what was posted above was not even close to an Appeal to Tradition. An example of an Appeal to Tradition is, "every woman in my family has been a nurse or a doctor, therefore I as a woman must also be a nurse or doctor." Thus in that example the woman believes her only course of action is to be a nurse or doctor because every woman in her family has been a nurse or doctor. In the instance of this thread, no one is suggesting that we turn everything into stone and never change anything again. What's being asked of the OP and others such as yourself is WHY the proposed change should be made. OP thinks we need more weapon restrictions because EVE Online has them. Since the proposed change would effect everyone in the game, myself included, I want to know his logical reasoning behind it.
The OP's reasoning is pretty clear, they want to nerf the "DPS problem." Something it would most likely not accomplish.
All I said on the subject was that more weapon slot types could allow making different ships more different. Maybe make them more interesting, more unique, less cosmetic. And therefore the concept shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because we currently only have front/rear/experimental.
As for your "was it there yesterday" example, there are times and places where such a thing is absolutely valid and this is one of those times. If I were to go to bed tonight with an all beam array build, and all 8 of my slots allowing me to equip what I want, only to wake up to find half my slots have been restricted and I'm being told I must now equip weapons I have no desire to use or so on, then yes that's a bad rule. Don't tell me I can equip all 8 of my slots with anything I want, then try to change the rules on me just because you don't like the choice I made. At that point you're absolutely changing the rules to try to force me to play the way you want me to play.
Such things happen. Like when they put rep traits into slots instead of permanently-on, we were left with half as many traits on at once.
I mean, sure I liked having 16 traits on and being reduced to 8 sucked. By now we'd have 48 traits and 12 clickies (soon to be 52/13 with the Disco rep) if they'd not slotified them and I'd still like to have that. And I totally could (and in fact did back then) call it a bad rule because I want more traits. But I wouldn't call it a bad rule just because it didn't exist before.
To suggest that the current way of doing things is the best if not the only way things could be done, just because it's the current way of doing things, is pure Appeal to Tradition.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't make "was it there yesterday" the deciding question whether a given rule is good or not today. There are existing rules that are bad and should be removed, as well as non-existing rules that could well be good.
Nevermind the thread isn't even about anybody "liking" a particular build style but rather the OP's (most likely mistaken) belief that requiring DPSers to pack torpedoes would weaken them.
If you really want to get into logical fallacies then the original post calling for limits to player options is actually a type of Bandwagon fallacy. "I don't like using all beam builds and it needs to be restricted because you shouldn't like it either," is essentially what it boils down to. Folks are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it holds no weight in reality. Secondly what was posted above was not even close to an Appeal to Tradition. An example of an Appeal to Tradition is, "every woman in my family has been a nurse or a doctor, therefore I as a woman must also be a nurse or doctor." Thus in that example the woman believes her only course of action is to be a nurse or doctor because every woman in her family has been a nurse or doctor. In the instance of this thread, no one is suggesting that we turn everything into stone and never change anything again. What's being asked of the OP and others such as yourself is WHY the proposed change should be made. OP thinks we need more weapon restrictions because EVE Online has them. Since the proposed change would effect everyone in the game, myself included, I want to know his logical reasoning behind it.
As for your "was it there yesterday" example, there are times and places where such a thing is absolutely valid and this is one of those times. If I were to go to bed tonight with an all beam array build, and all 8 of my slots allowing me to equip what I want, only to wake up to find half my slots have been restricted and I'm being told I must now equip weapons I have no desire to use or so on, then yes that's a bad rule. Don't tell me I can equip all 8 of my slots with anything I want, then try to change the rules on me just because you don't like the choice I made. At that point you're absolutely changing the rules to try to force me to play the way you want me to play.
Wanting these equipment restrictions is like little Johnny and little Susie trying to change the rules just because they don't like that little Timmy prefers a mace and crossbow instead of the shield and sword they prefer. It's the same principle as the flight vs no-flight in World of Warcraft. If someone didn't like flying the solution was always in front of them, use your ground mounts. In this case with the OP he doesn't like all beam builds, then don't run all beams. Slap a torp on there or something. The point is, why implement sweeping changes when there are already solutions to the issues the OP describes? Why should my ability to run all beams be stolen from me because he or someone else doesn't like it? Why should little Johnny and little Susie get to tell little Timmy he can't use his mace and crossbow when it has literally no effect on the 2 of them? Personally I despise the Tal Shiar ships because I've always had bad experiences with groups where those ships have appeared. At the same time I'm not going to deny folks the right to fly that ship. Likewise why should my right to equip all beams on a ship be restricted to appease the OP or anyone else? What logical purpose does it serve?
That's one thing the anti-flyers in WoW could never answer without their answer being 100% pure opinion, and also one thing I'm seeing here.
Actually, the OP is suggesting the change because he wants to "nerf" the evil DPSers. If you read all the stuff he said in the other thread before BMZ modded pretty much all of it out, this isn't even a question of his motive. There is no fallacy here. Those of us who kinda agree with the idea do not share the reason why the OP wants this because we all know that this won't work as skill a rather big factor in being able to do high DPS.
As for the rule is a bad rule because YOU personally do not like it is not valid. Mechanically, does it make the game more or less balanced? Does it make the game feel more like canon maybe? How about it makes the ships more varied and unique? Now the answer to these things is no, maybe and in the short term it does until they release more cookie cutters of whatever ship version that sells well. The last reason is why I changed my stance on the issue.
I don't care what Susie and Johnny wants...or hell what Timmy wants. If the mace and crossbow is not something that conforms to the world image or it breaks the system that switching to a forced sword and shield would fix, than yes it SHOULD be forced to be made that Tommy has to use a sword and shield. If it does not...than don't.
One could also look at this, not as taking away from the weapon slots. But to add a torpedo bay that works for both for an aft, like the experimental weapon. Just in the fore and aft 90' arcs. Which would only really work for science vessels and cruisers. Escorts and Raiders have the Experimental slot, so they don't really have a spot to put something like this.
The problem is, what to give up for it. Escorts and raiders lose a weapon slot for the Experimental. Most at 4/2, with it. The Maquis Raider for example, is a 5/1 with an experimental.
Now on a cruiser, if you dropped to a 4/3, instead of a 4/4, but had one torpedo slot that worked both fore and aft?
Adding a torpedo weapon slot that is both a forward and aft slot, so that torpedo would fire normally as both forward and aft weapon, but still be limited by cooldowns. This has the side benefit of letting [Arc] launchers be pseudo omni torpedos. But it would not give them true 360 powers, TS3 would still be limited to the forward or aft 180 arc.
STO would have been better as a Stargate MMO than it is as Star Trek. Go figure.
The problem is, what to give up for it. Escorts and raiders lose a weapon slot for the Experimental. Most at 4/2, with it. The Maquis Raider for example, is a 5/1 with an experimental.
Actually... escorts don't lose anything. It was a pure buff to give them the Experimentals. The Phantom is still a 4/3 with an Experimental.
The problem is, what to give up for it. Escorts and raiders lose a weapon slot for the Experimental. Most at 4/2, with it. The Maquis Raider for example, is a 5/1 with an experimental.
Actually... escorts don't lose anything. It was a pure buff to give them the Experimentals. The Phantom is still a 4/3 with an Experimental.
Oh.. right. The Maquis took the hit cause of the MW console slot.
So there is that to consider as well.
If we look at it that way.
A MW cruiser would be a 4/3, and any other cruiser would be a 4/4, if you add in a torpedo bay like this.
The OP's reasoning is pretty clear, they want to nerf the "DPS problem." Something it would most likely not accomplish.
All I said on the subject was that more weapon slot types could allow making different ships more different. Maybe make them more interesting, more unique, less cosmetic. And therefore the concept shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because we currently only have front/rear/experimental.
I got that part about the "DPS problem", which is why I asked what did about other logical reasons. Just because he doesn't like it is no reason to restrict everyone else.
I don't dismiss the idea without reason. I dismiss the idea because it adds nothing of value to the game and actually takes options away from people which allow them to make their ships even more their own. If folks want to mix up their builds and use different builds on different ships, they can do exactly that as the game sits right now without the need to overhaul a bunch of stuff and make sweeping changes. No one is going to hold a gun to their head and tell them they have to build exactly like everyone else.
If one wants to make a certain ship feel more unique, then give them something unique. Science ships were given secondary deflectors, something no other type of ship in game has. quite a few escorts were given experimental weapon slots, something again that no other type of ship had or could get. In both cases these items were ADDITIONS to what was already present on the ship. If an escort was running 4/3 or even 5/2 on weapons, it would have become a 4/4 or 5/3 respectively once the experimental weapon was added. Thus both ship types were given something to make them unique without taking away from what was already present. There's no reason the same thing can't be done here.
Such things happen. Like when they put rep traits into slots instead of permanently-on, we were left with half as many traits on at once.
I mean, sure I liked having 16 traits on and being reduced to 8 sucked. By now we'd have 48 traits and 12 clickies (soon to be 52/13 with the Disco rep) if they'd not slotified them and I'd still like to have that. And I totally could (and in fact did back then) call it a bad rule because I want more traits. But I wouldn't call it a bad rule just because it didn't exist before.
Swinging the nerf bat because something becomes THE answer in all cases like the leech and plasma exploders did, and nerfing purely because someone doesn't like it is something else entirely. The changes made to reputation traits fall into that first category, the change was made because allowing someone to have essentially 43 additional traits and 8 clickables beyond the first 5 would have been extremely broke. Having the traits was never the problem, being able to slot all 48 of them at once however would have been.
In the case of weapons, being able to slot 8 beam arrays as the primary example has never been the problem. The problem is all the insane ways there are to boost those 8 beams. The same thing is true with cannon builds as well. Wanting the different slots restricted to encourage build diversity is a bad rule because it will do nothing but enrage the populace and make folks want to quit while adding nothing of value to the game.
Actually, the OP is suggesting the change because he wants to "nerf" the evil DPSers. If you read all the stuff he said in the other thread before BMZ modded pretty much all of it out, this isn't even a question of his motive. There is no fallacy here. Those of us who kinda agree with the idea do not share the reason why the OP wants this because we all know that this won't work as skill a rather big factor in being able to do high DPS.
As for the rule is a bad rule because YOU personally do not like it is not valid. Mechanically, does it make the game more or less balanced? Does it make the game feel more like canon maybe? How about it makes the ships more varied and unique? Now the answer to these things is no, maybe and in the short term it does until they release more cookie cutters of whatever ship version that sells well. The last reason is why I changed my stance on the issue.
I'm well aware of why he wants it done. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a bandwagon fallacy. He doesn't like it and neither should anyone else.
It's not a bad rule purely because I don't like it. It's a bad rule because it actually subtracts options from the game and forces one person's style of building onto the rest of the populace. If the goal is to encourage diversity and uniqueness, there are already established means by which this can be done, such as giving them something unique like the science ships or the experimental slot examples I pointed out above, or simply the OP and others rolling different types of builds on their own. Again no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "build this way or I'm going to make you a grease stain." Like the Anti-flyers in WoW, why implement sweeping changes to try to force everyone else to play the way you want when you already have a solution in front of you, use your ground mounts. In this case here, ask for additional slots be given or build different on your own. Aside from wanting to force a bandwagon I really don't get why some folks are so dead set about demanding others be effected as well.
I don't care what Susie and Johnny wants...or hell what Timmy wants. If the mace and crossbow is not something that conforms to the world image or it breaks the system that switching to a forced sword and shield would fix, than yes it SHOULD be forced to be made that Tommy has to use a sword and shield. If it does not...than don't.
With this statement we've finally reached the root I've been digging for. Your argument basically boils down to "but it breaks my immersion," which was the same argument the anti-flyers used. I've already explained why swinging the nerf bat for a game breaking issue isn't the same as what the OP is suggesting. I've also already explained why sometimes games make decisions for gameplay reasons that don't always sit well with lore using the Shadow Priest example.
In Trek we see ships using all different kinds of weapons, and we've seen the TNG crew and otherwise improvise weapons out of thin air that simply didn't exist before. It's already been established in game lore and other bits of official lore that by the time of TNG especially, ships are mostly modular. Ships can be configured and reconfigured again as many times as they need to meet the demands of the battlefield. In fact we see in DS9 we see prime examples of this. The Federation refit the DS9 station and loaded it up with more modern phasers and photon banks. The station didn't use to have all of those as it was an old Cardassian station. The Borg even go as far as completely reconfiguring entire ships and stations as it suits them. If the Federation and the Borg can refit ships and stations to suit their needs by adding phasers or so on, it's not unreasonable to assume another race could modify Federation tech and change over from phasers to polarons or such. So a Galaxy class using polarons is absolutely within the realm of possibility. Especially within the millions upon millions of timelines that exist in Trek per the TNG episode Parallels.
It's as simple as saying we're in a timeline that strongly resembles the prime one, or starfleet has allowed their captains to modify their ships as needed/desired. It's not that difficult to make it fit. So what "fits the image" is completely subjective and not a valid argument. What I do when I'm only has literally no effect on you unless somehow we're miraculously grouped together. Then afterwards as long as we both can pull our own weight, it doesn't matter if I'm using polarons, tetryons, or disruptors as long as we can both get the job done. If somehow I wasn't pulling my weight, then you could demand I change my build or do something to get up to snuff. As was once said by Trendy "your fun is not wrong." You may like something more towards canon and being super strict with it. I however don't and that's not wrong either. At the end of the day neither of us owes the other anything. To be perfectly blunt I really don't care about your immersion and what you do in your own game with your own toons. I only care that the proposed change would effect my toons in my game and force another individual's definition of immersion on me.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
What about giving torpedoes an ammo count? Buy generic ammo to restock torpedoes no matter which type they are, but not lose the actual torpedo you have slotted of course.
Of course there will always be cookie cutter builds. But that's not actually the diversity I was after, but rather the diversity of the ships themselves. Namely, that there are a bazillion and one T6 ships in the game more released all the time, yet there you can count on your fingers all the possible weapon slot layouts between all of them.
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
What about giving torpedoes an ammo count? Buy generic ammo to restock torpedoes no matter which type they are, but not lose the actual torpedo you have slotted of course.
Then they'd also have to try and have it interact with torpedo buffing abilities, which also in turn have to figure out what kind of torpedo you're using because different torpedos behave differently based on buff used, and then there's the Command ability that gives everyone a free HY1...
For example, Torpedo Spread launches how many? At Spread 3... A LOT. Then we have to consider that the Neutronic Torpedo doesn't quite follow the established rules of Torpedo Spread and doesn't fire as many as say the Gravimetric Photon Torpedo (Both being rep torpedos to maintain a fair comparison rather than using a bog standard Photon).
Likewise Different Torpedos function differently with High Yield. A Quantum Torpedo will fire a volley based on the level of the HY, whereas a Plasma Torpedo will fire a single heavy plasma.
But wait... there's more! Transport Warhead Intel ability! How does that factor in?
And then we get into other torpedos like the Romulan Hyper-Plasma and the Omega Plasma. And the Omega kinda already HAS an ammo mechanic of sorts! And the Harg'peng? How will that play in?
And then we got the Cluster Torpedos that don't detonate, but deploy mines.
And on top of THAT... we got missiles that function like torpedos and we got mines. How do we figure that into it? Especially with the dispersal patterns for mines.
Forcing an ammo mechanic into the game for torpedos at this point is just too complicated. There are way too many variables.
What about giving torpedoes an ammo count? Buy generic ammo to restock torpedoes no matter which type they are, but not lose the actual torpedo you have slotted of course.
That would more or less make sure that torps would never be a viable option with the current system (why have weapon you run out of ammo) or if the system is changed in such a way that you must equip a torp it would only enrage people since now they got this thing they must remember or risk having 1 of their weapon turn useles and they can't even get rid of that weapon.
What about giving torpedoes an ammo count? Buy generic ammo to restock torpedoes no matter which type they are, but not lose the actual torpedo you have slotted of course.
There is already a torpedo in game with an ammo count and its not very popular.
As was once said by Trendy "your fun is not wrong." You may like something more towards canon and being super strict with it. I however don't and that's not wrong either. At the end of the day neither of us owes the other anything. To be perfectly blunt I really don't care about your immersion and what you do in your own game with your own toons. I only care that the proposed change would effect my toons in my game and force another individual's definition of immersion on me.
This. I agree with this. I especially agree with the bold part.
I don't care about anyone's immersion except my own.
My best friend, though she has toons from all factions, is Fed through and through and is a stickler for keeping to 'canon'. Her Feds use phasers, wear the Oddy uniform, fly Fed ships. Her Roms use plasma and fly Rom ships. Her Klings use disruptors and fly Klingon ships.
Me? I just do what I like, wear what I like and fly what I like, irrespective of if I'm playing Fed, Rom or Kling.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Of course there will always be cookie cutter builds. But that's not actually the diversity I was after, but rather the diversity of the ships themselves. Namely, that there are a bazillion and one T6 ships in the game more released all the time, yet there you can count on your fingers all the possible weapon slot layouts between all of them.
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
There is actually quite a few ways to make ships unique that are left. How about a T6 ship with just an ensign tac slot and 7 engineer slots? Why don't we see that? Because it won't sell well. The reason we see so many cookie cutter like T6 ship layouts is because those are the ones that sell well so they get copied. Even if we do make some projectile only slots, we will eventually run into the same issue as whatever layout is what sells gets copied. So really we won't see a diversity in ship layouts. Which is why I went from liking the idea to not.
And we could have a whole long discussion on what causes that particular bit of discontinuity, but that would be off-topic. Suffice to say that "whatever layout is what sells gets copied" is very wrong and new releases should seek to surpass the old instead of merely copying it. There is, after all, no point having a new ship if something exactly like it already exists.
But sticking to the weapons, it is indeed unfortunate that projectiles are currently so neglected in STO, but concluding that it can't be changed is obviously not a solution for anything.
What about giving torpedoes an ammo count? Buy generic ammo to restock torpedoes no matter which type they are, but not lose the actual torpedo you have slotted of course.
There is already a torpedo in game with an ammo count and its not very popular.
I don't know what you are talking about. I love that one for triggering the doffs on my torp boats. Stick an omega in the front and rom hyper in the back. Although the free missles does make for a good alternative.
I like it as well as it hits twice as many targets as normal for torpedo spread. It can hit 10 ships instead of 5 but the impression I get from other players is its not very popular.
I think the fact you can't just leave them on autofire is one reason I don't see it used often. Hell... I don't even remember the last time I saw a player using the Omega Torp. Most of the time I see anything like it... its the big, honkin' bolt from the Unimatrix ships.
Of course there will always be cookie cutter builds. But that's not actually the diversity I was after, but rather the diversity of the ships themselves. Namely, that there are a bazillion and one T6 ships in the game more released all the time, yet there you can count on your fingers all the possible weapon slot layouts between all of them.
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
There is actually quite a few ways to make ships unique that are left. How about a T6 ship with just an ensign tac slot and 7 engineer slots? Why don't we see that? Because it won't sell well. The reason we see so many cookie cutter like T6 ship layouts is because those are the ones that sell well so they get copied. Even if we do make some projectile only slots, we will eventually run into the same issue as whatever layout is what sells gets copied. So really we won't see a diversity in ship layouts. Which is why I went from liking the idea to not.
And we could have a whole long discussion on what causes that particular bit of discontinuity, but that would be off-topic. Suffice to say that "whatever layout is what sells gets copied" is very wrong and new releases should seek to surpass the old instead of merely copying it. There is, after all, no point having a new ship if something exactly like it already exists.
But sticking to the weapons, it is indeed unfortunate that projectiles are currently so neglected in STO, but concluding that it can't be changed is obviously not a solution for anything.
Well, yes and no, on the off-topic. This entire thread kind of falls in the immersion category, and ships are a part of that.
For example, for me. On my main I run the Maquis Raider. However for one of my Science officers, I run carrier. The problem here is the limited selection of what I'm after. Because what the devs call a carrier and what I call a carrier are two different things. The primary example of this being, the only 2-hangar bay, science oriented carrier out there, is the Tholian Recluse. So the Tholians are ahead of everyone else in this regard.
Now how does this differ? Well, by the Dev's definition that 1 hangar bay makes a carrier. That makes then Ent-F a carrier, with it's ability to launch and Aquarius light escort. This is like calling a current Naval Cruiser or Battleship a carrier, simply because they have helo-pads, which are little more than what we'd call a shuttle bay. However, if you swapped the personnel carrier helo's out and placed Apache's there... they then become fighter squadrons. Still though, not a carrier.
The same applies to torpedoes. Most current naval ships have either two torpedo tubes, connected to a single torpedo bay. Or deck mounted torpedo launchers. Does this then make them a submarine, since that's a sub's primary method of attack? No.
However, as far a new ships go. Well, if you look over the T6 ships, there are a great many that have the same layouts. The only thing that changes is the appearance and console they come with. So, what's the point of new ships, other than to make money? Not really one.
As to torpedoes and their usefulness. Yeah, we have quite a few useless ones, like the missile packs. As to the more useful ones, you have to look at what they do. Most torps don't have this. However, ones that can be buffed via energy type, the agony phaser ones for example, are useful, because your phaser consoles buff this damage. Just like the quantums from the episode set, the shield damage on these are buffed by your drain skill. Which, leaves quite a few in the useless category, because there's limited ways to buff them. I mean, I don't know about you, but it's been forever since I seated a warhead yield console.
However, on the missile packs. I'll give props to the Dev's here. They're a great homage to the Talarans who still used guided missiles on their ships during DS9.
Kinda the same fact that you have to choose to either buff your energy weapon, or your torpedo weapons, as splitting your slots up to buff a pairing of torpedo/mine weapons an energy weapon layout makes it less appealing an desirable compared to just sticking to a mono set up of only one energy/torpedo/mine type.
As such alot of people myself included have suggested removing, or converting over the general weapon buffing tact consoles into being pair buffing consoles that would buff a pair of energy an torp/mine types splitting the damage bonus between the pairing. If you set it that the overall buff to the weapons was less than slotting a specific solo energy/torp/mine console, and that either both weapon types got the same buff (so +30 compared to say +36), or maybe if the console gave the same buff as a mono energy/torp/mine console the buff was split between the pairing (like in the case of a mono console giving a +36 you might see a pairing giving a +25 to one an +11 to the other or some other split). Mono consoles an builds still would be stronger an more desirable damage wise, but mixed builds would be much improved an more appealing to use, and this might be easier for the devs to implement actually.
Kinda the same fact that you have to choose to either buff your energy weapon, or your torpedo weapons, as splitting your slots up to buff a pairing of torpedo/mine weapons an energy weapon layout makes it less appealing an desirable compared to just sticking to a mono set up of only one energy/torpedo/mine type.
As such alot of people myself included have suggested removing, or converting over the general weapon buffing tact consoles into being pair buffing consoles that would buff a pair of energy an torp/mine types splitting the damage bonus between the pairing. If you set it that the overall buff to the weapons was less than slotting a specific solo energy/torp/mine console, and that either both weapon types got the same buff (so +30 compared to say +36), or maybe if the console gave the same buff as a mono energy/torp/mine console the buff was split between the pairing (like in the case of a mono console giving a +36 you might see a pairing giving a +25 to one an +11 to the other or some other split). Mono consoles an builds still would be stronger an more desirable damage wise, but mixed builds would be much improved an more appealing to use, and this might be easier for the devs to implement actually.
A console that mixed the Directed Energy Modulator and the Warhead Yield one, wouldn't be a bad thing.
Both of these just buff they type and not the energy.
I mean, we do have consoles, like the morphogenic one, that gives +phaser and +polaron.
The downside to the energy torps though, is Aceton Assimilators. Those little frakkers are the bane of any Energy only build. I speak from experience as my Sarco is basically running pure Disruptor only, including the Nausicaan torp, and has to run away from Acetons because it wrecks my Slavers and I have no counter.
Its a PITA, but... I guess its a balancing factor. Luckilly Aceton only really appears when fighting Gorn. Or Voth.
Kinda the same fact that you have to choose to either buff your energy weapon, or your torpedo weapons, as splitting your slots up to buff a pairing of torpedo/mine weapons an energy weapon layout makes it less appealing an desirable compared to just sticking to a mono set up of only one energy/torpedo/mine type.
As such alot of people myself included have suggested removing, or converting over the general weapon buffing tact consoles into being pair buffing consoles that would buff a pair of energy an torp/mine types splitting the damage bonus between the pairing. If you set it that the overall buff to the weapons was less than slotting a specific solo energy/torp/mine console, and that either both weapon types got the same buff (so +30 compared to say +36), or maybe if the console gave the same buff as a mono energy/torp/mine console the buff was split between the pairing (like in the case of a mono console giving a +36 you might see a pairing giving a +25 to one an +11 to the other or some other split). Mono consoles an builds still would be stronger an more desirable damage wise, but mixed builds would be much improved an more appealing to use, and this might be easier for the devs to implement actually.
A console that mixed the Directed Energy Modulator and the Warhead Yield one, wouldn't be a bad thing.
Both of these just buff they type and not the energy.
I mean, we do have consoles, like the morphogenic one, that gives +phaser and +polaron.
That is possible an might be worth it as the bonus gained from such a pairing console buffing both weapon an energy types might be at a category one step less, so at purple quality it might give out a buff of 23 compared to a specific energy or torpedo/mine console giving a bonus of 33 a full 10 points less. You would not have to have specific energy torpedo/mine type buffing pair consoles for it to be appealing to run mixed builds, though even having them would still have specific mono buffing tactical consoles edging out gaining atleast five more point of buffing making them output wise higher.
We might have some consoles that buff pairs of types both energy an even torpedo/mine types, but most of those are either from sets, or unique consoles that you are limited on. So the impact on a build using a mixed set that uses a specific energy type with a specific torpedo/mine type is negligible where as the impact of being able to slot so many tactical consoles that buff a specific energy type makes them have a much higher impact an makes using a single energy type just that much more appealing.
Of course there will always be cookie cutter builds. But that's not actually the diversity I was after, but rather the diversity of the ships themselves. Namely, that there are a bazillion and one T6 ships in the game more released all the time, yet there you can count on your fingers all the possible weapon slot layouts between all of them.
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
There is actually quite a few ways to make ships unique that are left. How about a T6 ship with just an ensign tac slot and 7 engineer slots? Why don't we see that? Because it won't sell well. The reason we see so many cookie cutter like T6 ship layouts is because those are the ones that sell well so they get copied. Even if we do make some projectile only slots, we will eventually run into the same issue as whatever layout is what sells gets copied. So really we won't see a diversity in ship layouts. Which is why I went from liking the idea to not.
And we could have a whole long discussion on what causes that particular bit of discontinuity, but that would be off-topic. Suffice to say that "whatever layout is what sells gets copied" is very wrong and new releases should seek to surpass the old instead of merely copying it. There is, after all, no point having a new ship if something exactly like it already exists.
But sticking to the weapons, it is indeed unfortunate that projectiles are currently so neglected in STO, but concluding that it can't be changed is obviously not a solution for anything.
No, absolutely not. New releases should NOT be constantly better than what comes before. You actually want lateral growth...not more and more power creep. And there is a point to those new ships with the sameish stats...it's called new skins. Space barbie is the real end game.
"Lateral growth" is still better than what comes before. New releases should always be better than what was before, in some situation. But you can't have lateral growth in a game in which everything comes down to the one and same thing everywhere, every time, for every player (=DPS).
Well, actually we can't really have growth of any kind in a game where the content never grows with us at all...that's the source of the power creep "problem."
And no, the ships are very explicity NOT skins. If they were, you'd be able to display whatever appearance you like regardless of what you're actually equipped with, like you can with clothes on your toon. That has been asked many times over the years and rejected by the devs.
Comments
All I said on the subject was that more weapon slot types could allow making different ships more different. Maybe make them more interesting, more unique, less cosmetic. And therefore the concept shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because we currently only have front/rear/experimental.
Such things happen. Like when they put rep traits into slots instead of permanently-on, we were left with half as many traits on at once.
I mean, sure I liked having 16 traits on and being reduced to 8 sucked. By now we'd have 48 traits and 12 clickies (soon to be 52/13 with the Disco rep) if they'd not slotified them and I'd still like to have that. And I totally could (and in fact did back then) call it a bad rule because I want more traits. But I wouldn't call it a bad rule just because it didn't exist before.
One could also look at this, not as taking away from the weapon slots. But to add a torpedo bay that works for both for an aft, like the experimental weapon. Just in the fore and aft 90' arcs. Which would only really work for science vessels and cruisers. Escorts and Raiders have the Experimental slot, so they don't really have a spot to put something like this.
The problem is, what to give up for it. Escorts and raiders lose a weapon slot for the Experimental. Most at 4/2, with it. The Maquis Raider for example, is a 5/1 with an experimental.
Now on a cruiser, if you dropped to a 4/3, instead of a 4/4, but had one torpedo slot that worked both fore and aft?
~Karona@Sobekeus
Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier Exterminatus
Actually... escorts don't lose anything. It was a pure buff to give them the Experimentals. The Phantom is still a 4/3 with an Experimental.
Oh.. right. The Maquis took the hit cause of the MW console slot.
So there is that to consider as well.
If we look at it that way.
A MW cruiser would be a 4/3, and any other cruiser would be a 4/4, if you add in a torpedo bay like this.
Um... the original MW Cruisers are 4/4
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Tucker_Tactical_Miracle_Worker_Cruiser
But they don't have the extra weapon, like an experimental.
Like you said, the Phantom is a 4/3 with an Experimental, technically making it a 4/4 ship.
The Maquis is a 5/1 with experimental, so it's 5/2 technically. It's missing the 8th weapon due to the MW console.
I got that part about the "DPS problem", which is why I asked what did about other logical reasons. Just because he doesn't like it is no reason to restrict everyone else.
I don't dismiss the idea without reason. I dismiss the idea because it adds nothing of value to the game and actually takes options away from people which allow them to make their ships even more their own. If folks want to mix up their builds and use different builds on different ships, they can do exactly that as the game sits right now without the need to overhaul a bunch of stuff and make sweeping changes. No one is going to hold a gun to their head and tell them they have to build exactly like everyone else.
If one wants to make a certain ship feel more unique, then give them something unique. Science ships were given secondary deflectors, something no other type of ship in game has. quite a few escorts were given experimental weapon slots, something again that no other type of ship had or could get. In both cases these items were ADDITIONS to what was already present on the ship. If an escort was running 4/3 or even 5/2 on weapons, it would have become a 4/4 or 5/3 respectively once the experimental weapon was added. Thus both ship types were given something to make them unique without taking away from what was already present. There's no reason the same thing can't be done here.
Swinging the nerf bat because something becomes THE answer in all cases like the leech and plasma exploders did, and nerfing purely because someone doesn't like it is something else entirely. The changes made to reputation traits fall into that first category, the change was made because allowing someone to have essentially 43 additional traits and 8 clickables beyond the first 5 would have been extremely broke. Having the traits was never the problem, being able to slot all 48 of them at once however would have been.
In the case of weapons, being able to slot 8 beam arrays as the primary example has never been the problem. The problem is all the insane ways there are to boost those 8 beams. The same thing is true with cannon builds as well. Wanting the different slots restricted to encourage build diversity is a bad rule because it will do nothing but enrage the populace and make folks want to quit while adding nothing of value to the game.
I'm well aware of why he wants it done. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a bandwagon fallacy. He doesn't like it and neither should anyone else.
It's not a bad rule purely because I don't like it. It's a bad rule because it actually subtracts options from the game and forces one person's style of building onto the rest of the populace. If the goal is to encourage diversity and uniqueness, there are already established means by which this can be done, such as giving them something unique like the science ships or the experimental slot examples I pointed out above, or simply the OP and others rolling different types of builds on their own. Again no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "build this way or I'm going to make you a grease stain." Like the Anti-flyers in WoW, why implement sweeping changes to try to force everyone else to play the way you want when you already have a solution in front of you, use your ground mounts. In this case here, ask for additional slots be given or build different on your own. Aside from wanting to force a bandwagon I really don't get why some folks are so dead set about demanding others be effected as well.
With this statement we've finally reached the root I've been digging for. Your argument basically boils down to "but it breaks my immersion," which was the same argument the anti-flyers used. I've already explained why swinging the nerf bat for a game breaking issue isn't the same as what the OP is suggesting. I've also already explained why sometimes games make decisions for gameplay reasons that don't always sit well with lore using the Shadow Priest example.
In Trek we see ships using all different kinds of weapons, and we've seen the TNG crew and otherwise improvise weapons out of thin air that simply didn't exist before. It's already been established in game lore and other bits of official lore that by the time of TNG especially, ships are mostly modular. Ships can be configured and reconfigured again as many times as they need to meet the demands of the battlefield. In fact we see in DS9 we see prime examples of this. The Federation refit the DS9 station and loaded it up with more modern phasers and photon banks. The station didn't use to have all of those as it was an old Cardassian station. The Borg even go as far as completely reconfiguring entire ships and stations as it suits them. If the Federation and the Borg can refit ships and stations to suit their needs by adding phasers or so on, it's not unreasonable to assume another race could modify Federation tech and change over from phasers to polarons or such. So a Galaxy class using polarons is absolutely within the realm of possibility. Especially within the millions upon millions of timelines that exist in Trek per the TNG episode Parallels.
It's as simple as saying we're in a timeline that strongly resembles the prime one, or starfleet has allowed their captains to modify their ships as needed/desired. It's not that difficult to make it fit. So what "fits the image" is completely subjective and not a valid argument. What I do when I'm only has literally no effect on you unless somehow we're miraculously grouped together. Then afterwards as long as we both can pull our own weight, it doesn't matter if I'm using polarons, tetryons, or disruptors as long as we can both get the job done. If somehow I wasn't pulling my weight, then you could demand I change my build or do something to get up to snuff. As was once said by Trendy "your fun is not wrong." You may like something more towards canon and being super strict with it. I however don't and that's not wrong either. At the end of the day neither of us owes the other anything. To be perfectly blunt I really don't care about your immersion and what you do in your own game with your own toons. I only care that the proposed change would effect my toons in my game and force another individual's definition of immersion on me.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
Then they'd also have to try and have it interact with torpedo buffing abilities, which also in turn have to figure out what kind of torpedo you're using because different torpedos behave differently based on buff used, and then there's the Command ability that gives everyone a free HY1...
For example, Torpedo Spread launches how many? At Spread 3... A LOT. Then we have to consider that the Neutronic Torpedo doesn't quite follow the established rules of Torpedo Spread and doesn't fire as many as say the Gravimetric Photon Torpedo (Both being rep torpedos to maintain a fair comparison rather than using a bog standard Photon).
Likewise Different Torpedos function differently with High Yield. A Quantum Torpedo will fire a volley based on the level of the HY, whereas a Plasma Torpedo will fire a single heavy plasma.
But wait... there's more! Transport Warhead Intel ability! How does that factor in?
And then we get into other torpedos like the Romulan Hyper-Plasma and the Omega Plasma. And the Omega kinda already HAS an ammo mechanic of sorts! And the Harg'peng? How will that play in?
And then we got the Cluster Torpedos that don't detonate, but deploy mines.
And on top of THAT... we got missiles that function like torpedos and we got mines. How do we figure that into it? Especially with the dispersal patterns for mines.
Forcing an ammo mechanic into the game for torpedos at this point is just too complicated. There are way too many variables.
This. I agree with this. I especially agree with the bold part.
I don't care about anyone's immersion except my own.
My best friend, though she has toons from all factions, is Fed through and through and is a stickler for keeping to 'canon'. Her Feds use phasers, wear the Oddy uniform, fly Fed ships. Her Roms use plasma and fly Rom ships. Her Klings use disruptors and fly Klingon ships.
Me? I just do what I like, wear what I like and fly what I like, irrespective of if I'm playing Fed, Rom or Kling.
But sticking to the weapons, it is indeed unfortunate that projectiles are currently so neglected in STO, but concluding that it can't be changed is obviously not a solution for anything.
Well, yes and no, on the off-topic. This entire thread kind of falls in the immersion category, and ships are a part of that.
For example, for me. On my main I run the Maquis Raider. However for one of my Science officers, I run carrier. The problem here is the limited selection of what I'm after. Because what the devs call a carrier and what I call a carrier are two different things. The primary example of this being, the only 2-hangar bay, science oriented carrier out there, is the Tholian Recluse. So the Tholians are ahead of everyone else in this regard.
Now how does this differ? Well, by the Dev's definition that 1 hangar bay makes a carrier. That makes then Ent-F a carrier, with it's ability to launch and Aquarius light escort. This is like calling a current Naval Cruiser or Battleship a carrier, simply because they have helo-pads, which are little more than what we'd call a shuttle bay. However, if you swapped the personnel carrier helo's out and placed Apache's there... they then become fighter squadrons. Still though, not a carrier.
The same applies to torpedoes. Most current naval ships have either two torpedo tubes, connected to a single torpedo bay. Or deck mounted torpedo launchers. Does this then make them a submarine, since that's a sub's primary method of attack? No.
However, as far a new ships go. Well, if you look over the T6 ships, there are a great many that have the same layouts. The only thing that changes is the appearance and console they come with. So, what's the point of new ships, other than to make money? Not really one.
As to torpedoes and their usefulness. Yeah, we have quite a few useless ones, like the missile packs. As to the more useful ones, you have to look at what they do. Most torps don't have this. However, ones that can be buffed via energy type, the agony phaser ones for example, are useful, because your phaser consoles buff this damage. Just like the quantums from the episode set, the shield damage on these are buffed by your drain skill. Which, leaves quite a few in the useless category, because there's limited ways to buff them. I mean, I don't know about you, but it's been forever since I seated a warhead yield console.
However, on the missile packs. I'll give props to the Dev's here. They're a great homage to the Talarans who still used guided missiles on their ships during DS9.
As such alot of people myself included have suggested removing, or converting over the general weapon buffing tact consoles into being pair buffing consoles that would buff a pair of energy an torp/mine types splitting the damage bonus between the pairing. If you set it that the overall buff to the weapons was less than slotting a specific solo energy/torp/mine console, and that either both weapon types got the same buff (so +30 compared to say +36), or maybe if the console gave the same buff as a mono energy/torp/mine console the buff was split between the pairing (like in the case of a mono console giving a +36 you might see a pairing giving a +25 to one an +11 to the other or some other split). Mono consoles an builds still would be stronger an more desirable damage wise, but mixed builds would be much improved an more appealing to use, and this might be easier for the devs to implement actually.
A console that mixed the Directed Energy Modulator and the Warhead Yield one, wouldn't be a bad thing.
Both of these just buff they type and not the energy.
I mean, we do have consoles, like the morphogenic one, that gives +phaser and +polaron.
Its a PITA, but... I guess its a balancing factor. Luckilly Aceton only really appears when fighting Gorn. Or Voth.
That is possible an might be worth it as the bonus gained from such a pairing console buffing both weapon an energy types might be at a category one step less, so at purple quality it might give out a buff of 23 compared to a specific energy or torpedo/mine console giving a bonus of 33 a full 10 points less. You would not have to have specific energy torpedo/mine type buffing pair consoles for it to be appealing to run mixed builds, though even having them would still have specific mono buffing tactical consoles edging out gaining atleast five more point of buffing making them output wise higher.
We might have some consoles that buff pairs of types both energy an even torpedo/mine types, but most of those are either from sets, or unique consoles that you are limited on. So the impact on a build using a mixed set that uses a specific energy type with a specific torpedo/mine type is negligible where as the impact of being able to slot so many tactical consoles that buff a specific energy type makes them have a much higher impact an makes using a single energy type just that much more appealing.
Well, actually we can't really have growth of any kind in a game where the content never grows with us at all...that's the source of the power creep "problem."
And no, the ships are very explicity NOT skins. If they were, you'd be able to display whatever appearance you like regardless of what you're actually equipped with, like you can with clothes on your toon. That has been asked many times over the years and rejected by the devs.