test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The growing rift between Beams and Cannons

bridgernbridgern Member Posts: 709 Arc User
Hello everyone,


I wanted to talk a bit about the rift between the performance of Beams and Cannons that is getting bigger and bigger.

As some who have longer played the game will remember, when the game was lunched it quickly got the nickname Cannons Online. Later on we had the Beam and Plasma Console Meta and now we are back to Cannons.

If we compare the average setup of today, an Epic Beam Array and an Epic Dual Cannon (both Phasers and the same Mods [CrtD/Dm] [Dmg]x4) we can see a difference of 951 or generously rounded 1K DPS.

l5xjH4m.png

(Note: I used Beam Arrays to show the difference because we still don't have enough variants of Omni-Dicretional Beams of every Energy type to be able to equip a 4x4 ship and have an efficient Dual Beam Bank Setup.)


In the past we argued that the difference was due to the ease of using Beams and to be fair a Beam Boat is easier to fly, but how to learn to use cannons is also no mystery.

What has changed however are the Traits that support Beams vs. Cannons and the Cannon Traits have become severely better not to mention that the Boff ability of Beam Fire at Will with it's duration of 10 seconds and 20 seconds global cooldown is worse than the one for Rapid Fire or Scatter Volley with the same duration of 10 seconds but only a global cooldown of 15 seconds.

If we now look at the Traits we have for Cannons "Go for the Kill", "Preferential Targeting", "Withering Barrage", and for Beams "Redirecting Arrays" and "Entwined Tactical Matrices".

So for once we have a fantastic combo for Rapid Fire, with Go for the Kill and Preferential Targeting and the same is true for Scatter Volley with Withering Barrage both extends the duration of Rapid Fire (indefinitely by causing critical hits) and Scatter Volley (for four seconds).

(Note: I know that Go for the Kill is super expensive and most players will never get it, but Withering Barrage is not and since it is an AOE attack it is most of the time the preferred Trait for cannons and you can buy the ships that have it in the C-Store.)


On the other side for Beams we have Redirecting Arrays which extends the duration of Beam Fire at Will by a Max of 15 seconds if you take constant damage, the problem however is that targets are dying so quickly that you basically never can take advantage of the duration increase.

Entwined Tactical Matrices is an interesting Trait but I would only use it if I had none of the other Traits for Beams and Cannons but it really shines for Torp Builds allowing you to rain Torp Spreads on your target.

So why is it important to buff Beams, so for once there are a lot of ships that can only use Beams, and other ships that could potentially use cannons are so sluggish they simply can't move/turn fast enough to keep up and second it's not that great of an experience when you enter a STF and everything is dead in seconds.


I have been on both sides nuke everything with my cannons before the rest of the team had a chance to do anything and I have seen the other side being the 5th wheel on the car with my Beams.


At this point what can be done:

Increase the base damage of Beams

Reduce the global cooldown of FAW to 15 seconds

Alter Redirecting Arrays so the duration increase is reduced by maybe 50% but is not depending on taking constant damage.
Bridger.png
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
«1

Comments

  • zerokillcf2011zerokillcf2011 Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    Why wouldn't you compare DBB banks? The damage is significantly closer to the Dual cannons. Beams were always designed for broadsiding from cruisers that generally have a much worse turn rate. So the trade off was less damage, but being easier to bring to target, AND generally better surviveability on a cruiser than an escort.

    But a straight damage boost to beams? No, don't see it. What would make more sense is offering more of the beams that have an increased range (there is currently I think the ONE tetryon DBB in the lobi store that has the 12 click range?) Give beams a new perk to make them more interesting, sure. But they aren't SUPPOSED to be equal to cannon damage. A cannon loaded escort should have better DPS than a beam loaded cruiser. But the cruiser survives easier.
  • bossheisenbergbossheisenberg Member Posts: 603 Arc User
    Why are you comparing a single beam with dual cannons? Seems like you're trying to make cannons look way better than they are. Beams and cannons each have advantages the other doesn't. What about CRF and CSV starting at lt. while beam abilities start at ensign? I think the vast majority of players use beams - I rarely see anyone using cannons in the queues.

    You left out some really good traits for beam - target rich environment and supremacy.

  • xorvxorv Member Posts: 75 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    Low skill spam weapons should never compare to the damage of weapons that require some piloting ability to use. Dual Beam Banks could probably use a little love from Cryptic, but not Beam Arrays and FAW. If anything spam weapons in PvE (FAW, CSV, TS, GW) could probably use a nerf. However, rather than nerfing their damage numbers directly I'd like to see some more capable NPC ships with better AI, more speed, defense, control resists, use of placates etc, basically NPCs that have some of the same tools players have, rather than just a load of Hull Health.

    Edit:

    Perhaps one of the problems making DBBs and single cannons undesirable is that CSV gives 90 deg firing arc to weapons normally restricted to 45 deg. Perhaps that ought to be reconsidered.
  • kavolkavol Member Posts: 24 Arc User
    I only have two characters (yeah I know) but one of them is entirely cannons and the other is entirely beam arrays.

    The cannons have a great alpha strike, but you need to actively position yourself and be aware of your direction.

    Beams are nice to lazily swan around firing broadsides at everything.

    I like both, for different reasons.
    sto-large.jpg
  • wideningxgyrewideningxgyre Member Posts: 710 Arc User
    For the top 10-15% of players and the bottom 10-15% of players the overall performance difference between cannons and beams will be even higher (and lower) than the point you're illustrating.

    I continue to believe that piloting can make up to 30-40% difference in measured "dps" in a given queue. Additionally, the skill of other players, their piloting and activations, as well as their team buffs and debuffs, also play a huge factor in overall performance.

    That said:

    - As others have noted, comparing DC to Beam Arrays on tooltip dps may not be an apples-to-apples comparison.

    - Broadsiding, you could have up to eight Beam Arrays firing on a single target, whereas using cannons, you can have max of 5 plus 3 turrets that have significantly lower dps.

    - Cannons require more energy and will often drain power levels faster than Beams. If power levels drop, so too will your damage output.

    - Some enemy situations are simply easier with beams than cannons. The Gamma arc and queues demonstrate that. Cannons work better with larger single target, but faster-moving smaller targets are more difficult to get the full benefit of the higher cannon dps, reducing the advantage.

    - The introduction of several pulling/pushing weapons often pull targets out of cannon targeting range.

    Cannons are clearly superior in absolute dps, they just may not be vastly superior WEAPONS for a significant portion of the player base.
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,248 Arc User
    As others have pointed out beams have a much better "on target" time on 8 beam ship no matter how you turn your ship you rely on having at least 4 weapons on target always and those weapons having normal damage.

    With a typical cannon build you'll have times when you'll have an absolute max of 4 weapons pointed at the target and those weapons will most likely be turrets that are inferior to beams (the cost of having 360 arc).

    A beam mounted at the front with the standard firing arc canshoot behind the ship without being out of the firing arc while cannons can target only targets in a cone in front of the ships even targets to the side are out of the firing arc without a [arc] mod on cannon.

    So beams don't really need a nerf as they make up for the weaker per hit damage by getting more hits on the target.
  • bossheisenbergbossheisenberg Member Posts: 603 Arc User
    - "The introduction of several pulling/pushing weapons often pull targets out of cannon targeting range."

    This is something that is increasingly a pet peeve. Having the whole map's worth of enemies all bunched up in one spot is taking a lot of the fun out of the game IMO.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    It has been a back & forth between the two years, it's not actually a "growing rift". Not too long ago - a year or two - beams were the leading weapon.

    Ultimately, comparing them one to one is pointless. You have to consider the build possibilities that actually exist.

    You have to compare something like 4 DHCs + 3 Turrets, 5 DHCs + 2 Turrets, 4 DHCs + 4 Turrets, 5 DHCs +3 Turrets vs 4 DBBs + 2 Omnis +2 Beams, 8 Beams, 6 Beams +2 Omnis, 7 Beams, 5 Beams and 2 Omnis, 5 DBBs and 2 Omnis and 1 Array etc and all that also with variable number of torpedo launchers, and then you add in the buff skills.

    Currently, Cannons might be on top, at least under ideal conditions (like, good pilot that knows where to be to maximize targets hit, and a team that supports her ideally by gravity welling targets, tanking damage away from her or healing her). But they might not do so well under less-ideal conditions and a beam build might shine better here.

    If anything, changes can probably limited to something small. It really doesn't matter whether a cannon build, a torpedo build or a beam fire build is at the head of the DPS charts. It matters more what works best in the typical PuG environment of Random TFOs. I am willing to believe that cannons are still superior here for a decent pilot, buit I am not sure.

    I'd first look more into dual beam banks and single cannons, actually, and from there look a bit into beam arrays specifically or beams in general. Maybe DBBs and SC could benefit from a simple damage buff, and beams as a whole could get a bit more damage out of BFAW and Beam Overload.

    IF there were to be a nerf to cannon, I'd look at the base statistics, and raise the damage of turrets by the amount you'd take away from cannons - maybe on the assumption that a "standard" loadout for canon build has 4 front DHCs and 3 Turrets. That would mean the "classic" 4/3 Escort loadout stays where it is overall, but 5/x would lose a bit. (While 4/4 or 3/5 would gain a bit.) It might not be much, more like taking 2-5 % from the D(H)Cs and add the difference to turrets.



    I'd also like to see the non-standard weapon buffs - Surgical Strikes, Reroute Reserves to Weapons - to get another look to make them more competitive.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 5,331 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    It's simple science. Unfortunately the game isn't scientifically accurate. In as simple as terms as I can put it.

    Energy beams are a sustained flow of energy that slowly dissipate with distance.
    Energy bolts are a packaged bolt of energy fired in succession that dissipate rapidly with distance, because nothing is sustaining the energy.

    Both lose energy to their surroundings, but there is no packaging to contain that energy, hence why they have ranges, and they drop off with range. The problem the game has, even though the loss of energy is typically greater with Cannons, is that Cannons themselves should have a shorter range, but be able to out perform Beams at extremely close range (which they do), because of this dissipation of energy.

    And before someone claims otherwise, this packaging of energy is done only in the apparatus itself. The magnetic constrictor coils do not travel with the focused beam or bolt, so that is why you have the energy dissipation for each. Unlike a torpedo.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • wideningxgyrewideningxgyre Member Posts: 710 Arc User
    It has been a back & forth between the two years, it's not actually a "growing rift". Not too long ago - a year or two - beams were the leading weapon.

    Ultimately, comparing them one to one is pointless. You have to consider the build possibilities that actually exist.

    You have to compare something like 4 DHCs + 3 Turrets, 5 DHCs + 2 Turrets, 4 DHCs + 4 Turrets, 5 DHCs +3 Turrets vs 4 DBBs + 2 Omnis +2 Beams, 8 Beams, 6 Beams +2 Omnis, 7 Beams, 5 Beams and 2 Omnis, 5 DBBs and 2 Omnis and 1 Array etc and all that also with variable number of torpedo launchers, and then you add in the buff skills.

    Currently, Cannons might be on top, at least under ideal conditions (like, good pilot that knows where to be to maximize targets hit, and a team that supports her ideally by gravity welling targets, tanking damage away from her or healing her). But they might not do so well under less-ideal conditions and a beam build might shine better here.

    If anything, changes can probably limited to something small. It really doesn't matter whether a cannon build, a torpedo build or a beam fire build is at the head of the DPS charts. It matters more what works best in the typical PuG environment of Random TFOs. I am willing to believe that cannons are still superior here for a decent pilot, buit I am not sure.

    I'd first look more into dual beam banks and single cannons, actually, and from there look a bit into beam arrays specifically or beams in general. Maybe DBBs and SC could benefit from a simple damage buff, and beams as a whole could get a bit more damage out of BFAW and Beam Overload.

    IF there were to be a nerf to cannon, I'd look at the base statistics, and raise the damage of turrets by the amount you'd take away from cannons - maybe on the assumption that a "standard" loadout for canon build has 4 front DHCs and 3 Turrets. That would mean the "classic" 4/3 Escort loadout stays where it is overall, but 5/x would lose a bit. (While 4/4 or 3/5 would gain a bit.) It might not be much, more like taking 2-5 % from the D(H)Cs and add the difference to turrets.



    I'd also like to see the non-standard weapon buffs - Surgical Strikes, Reroute Reserves to Weapons - to get another look to make them more competitive.

    As a follow-up, I'd rather see time spent getting better balance and performance tradeoffs within beams or cannons - Omnis/BA/DBB and Turret/cannons/DC/DHC - than necessarily trying to achieve parity across weapon types (not to mention the ability to have 3 omnis, not just 2 and KCB since you can have 3 turrets).

    There ought to be a more meaningful reason to choose single cannons vs DHC and greater discrimination between BA and DBB beyond firing arcs. More attention should be paid to firing cycles, damage per shot (vs. dps), additional procs to achieve better balance and actual player choices.
  • pwstolemynamepwstolemyname Member Posts: 1,417 Arc User
    Why is it taken as a given that everything should be equal?

    I am backing every horse in the DPS race. I have endgame beam setups, end game cannon setups, and end game exotic setups. There certainly is a discrepancy between the comparative power of the weapons systems. My experience is that exotic beats cannons which beat beams.

    My ranking is no doubt biased as I enjoy science more, and as a consequence have honed my play style around it to a degree to which I have not for cannons and beams. But while I lack the same enthusiasm for them my beam and science builds are easily capable of soloing most content.

    Once you surpass the minimum damage threshold to complete content designed for a team of five, on your own. I think the degree to which you can continue to excel ceases to have any value beyond personal achievement. As beams can certainly obtain this level I see no problem with them.

    Honestly cannons in trek were more often given to ships designed for warfare. and beams were more often given to ships designed for exploration. It makes sense that a ship designed for warfare would boast the most powerful damage delivery system so I have no problem with cannons being more powerful.

    One or the other is always going to be on top unless everything about them, and everything that boosts them, is made the same. I think the game is far more enjoyable when things are different then when they are the same, so why not just let cannons win this one?
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    Am I the only one who finds that STO forum‘s notorious “FAW is OP, plz nerf” crowds are suspiciously absent in this thread?

    Whatever, don’t give your hopes up OP. I have the feeling that cannons will be nerfed rather sooner than later. At that point the usual stuff happens. Some players will leave the game because they are pissed and the rest of us will just switch loadouts and continue to ram a fist into the scrub mentality of the player base.

    If I have learned one thing after seven years in this game is that bad players ask for the rules to be changed, good player just make the best of them. ;)
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    edited June 2019
    I am going to take the counter position.. not to be argumentative, but because I honestly feel this way..

    Minus a slight tweak here and there, I think game balance between beams and cannons is pretty close to exactly where it should be. I will explain..

    As said before, a beam boat running single beams is much easier to fly then a cannon boat, especially if that cannon boat is a larger ship like a Vengeance, Scimitar, or even a smaller but less agile ship like a Gagarin or an Avenger. A single beam cruiser is incredibly easy.. to the point where the turn rate pretty much doesn't even matter. The only time you really care about that is if you have a front mounted Torp that you want to be able to bring around. A simple Aux2Bat FAW Beam Boat is complete 'easy mode' and you're going to perform quite well, and destroy most content with very little effort.

    I am fully in support of the idea that beams should be less work with less payoff. Cannons take more effort, they have a higher potential payout. As others have pointed out, the original comparison should have been to a Dual Beam Banks and not a Single Beam.

    Now, the area where I will agree with the OP is in the Accuracy department. Part of the ultra fantastic S13 Nerf Fest.. I mean.. "Balance Pass" was an accuracy penalty that was put on FAW. I don't have an issue with that, but in sadly typical Cryptic fashion, they went WAY too far. FAW I for example is completely useless, you're honestly better off slotting nothing. A 50 penalty to accuracy is just insane. FAW II is bad.. but you can kind of make up for it with accuracy boosts. FAW III is close to being ok, but I do feel it could use a slight bump. I would bump the damage from 90% to 100% and reduce the accuracy penalty from 30 to 20. I would bump the damage on Rank I and Rank II by 5% and cut the accuracy penalties in half so that they can actually be useable.

    What I would like.. but it's a pipe dream.. is to see FAW have less penalties on Dual Beam Banks then on Single Beam Banks. This would help account for the increased difficulty involved in using DBB's and help bring them a bit closer to Dual Cannons. Again though, this is a pipe dream. I would like to see DBB's get a slight boost, but with the exception of the unreasonable accuracy penalties on FAW, I think Single Beams are just fine.

    I am cool with the 5 second difference in global cooldown. Given how easy FAW is to use, I think that's fair. It should be noted though that that's not a hard cap on that cooldown. What that means is that it's normally 20, but it can be lowered to 15 using something like Re-Directing Arrays, so it's something you can build around. Obviously, nothing will take it below 15 since that's the global hard cap. I would like to see the shared cooldown lowered from 20 seconds to 15 seconds on Dual Beam Banks. DBB's should compare directly to Dual Cannons.

    Cannons, I think are in a good place. They're powerful, but as Napalm said, they have much lower 'on target' time. Increasing that means having to be a better pilot. It takes more active work then just flying in circles and clicking Fire At Will. Cannons absolutely should outpace beams and I am happy that they do.

    I would like to see a slight tweak to Fire At Will, especially at Rank I and II. I also think that these penalties should be far less for Dual Beam Banks then Single Beams.

    In the end, I don't think any changes will actually be made. I think things are right about where Cryptic wants them right now which is why I mostly use Cannons now.
    If I have learned one thing after seven years in this game is that bad players ask for the rules to be changed, good player just make the best of them. ;)

    I have to admit, I have also found this to be true.

    You know well enough, I used to never run Cannons.. I was all beams for years. But when things shifted, I adjusted.

    If they shift again, I'll make more adjustments.
    Post edited by seaofsorrows on
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    And after the Cannon 'nerf', they will begin to sell Traits, Masteries, and Consoles that will 'enhance' them again. ;)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    And after the Cannon 'nerf', they will begin to sell Traits, Masteries, and Consoles that will 'enhance' them again. ;)

    This has been Cryptic's trend for some time now, yes.

    Frankly, it's one of the least desirable things about STO. Sell Power, nerf power and pass it off as 'balance,' sell more power,. repeat.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    And after the Cannon 'nerf', they will begin to sell Traits, Masteries, and Consoles that will 'enhance' them again. ;)

    This has been Cryptic's trend for some time now, yes.

    Frankly, it's one of the least desirable things about STO. Sell Power, nerf power and pass it off as 'balance,' sell more power,. repeat.

    Simple solution...don't change with the meta and they will stop doing it. My builds for the most part hasn't changed in years.

    Stop countering me with common sense.. you know I hate that. :lol:

    Seriously though, yes.. you're right. I don't have to make adjustments every time the meta shifts.. that part is my choice and I take responsibility for that. If they do a change that takes my ISA Parse from 300k to 280k it's not like I all the sudden can't play the game.

    The part that bothers me is when existing items, powers, or traits are 'adjusted' under the guise of overall game balance and then once done, they just sell things that are even more powerful. I simply don't find that to be a desirable approach to anything. But you're right, I always have the option to ignore it.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    How is this an issue? I see both Cannon and Beam oriented ships ripping apart content.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • xyquarzexyquarze Member Posts: 2,114 Arc User
    It is a non issue. However, in games with builds, classes, etc., not all are created equal (which would defy the purpose of having different set ups in the first place), some will be better in certain situations, some with certain players who have or don't have the ability to e. g. keep enemies in arc for a cannon build. And sometimes players will notice that a build performs better in a certain set of circumstances than they do (or they can replicate the success but not with the playstyle they prefer) and will ask for nerfs/boosts. It's a bit like the "Nerf rock, paper is fine" by scissors.

    This doesn't mean that every complaint/remark along those lines is a priori invalid. But it does mean that you cannot look at a single number, or the results of a single TFO with a certain setup of enemies, and decide that different styles are out of synch.
    My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    xyquarze wrote: »
    It is a non issue. However, in games with builds, classes, etc., not all are created equal (which would defy the purpose of having different set ups in the first place), some will be better in certain situations, some with certain players who have or don't have the ability to e. g. keep enemies in arc for a cannon build. And sometimes players will notice that a build performs better in a certain set of circumstances than they do (or they can replicate the success but not with the playstyle they prefer) and will ask for nerfs/boosts. It's a bit like the "Nerf rock, paper is fine" by scissors.

    This doesn't mean that every complaint/remark along those lines is a priori invalid. But it does mean that you cannot look at a single number, or the results of a single TFO with a certain setup of enemies, and decide that different styles are out of synch.

    Completely agreed.

    I would prefer to see some of the FAW nerfs revised, but overall I agree this isn't an issue. Beam builds are still perfectly capable of ripping their way unopposed through all of the games content.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • feliseanfelisean Member Posts: 688 Arc User
    xorv wrote: »
    [...]
    Edit:

    Perhaps one of the problems making DBBs and single cannons undesirable is that CSV gives 90 deg firing arc to weapons normally restricted to 45 deg. Perhaps that ought to be reconsidered.

    your primary target still need to be in your narrow weapon arc, so it need to be in a 45° arc. only for secondary targets the 90° arc count.

    in addition:
    faw could hit a max of 2 hits per shot fired, csv could hit 3. so in an enviroment with enough targets csv will usualy do more dmg ;)

    the only thing i would change would be to remove the dmg penality faw got some time ago. i guess that one is not needed anymore
  • casualstocasualsto Member Posts: 672 Arc User
    I'd address this for the casual user (TLDR type):
    Beams are lower than cannons due to the skill/Challenge vs Reward/Cool Factor.

    As much as we all fancy the beam looks from the series, cannons and torps need to also be factored in.

    Beams need to underperform cannons at the cost of flying certain ships and adopting certain playstyle.

    Bridger is right in one regard:

    Something needs to be done to favor beams in some settings.

    Add passive attributes to beams to make them viable choices:
    DBBs: +25 Accuracy when running dual beams (solely on dual beams)
    Beam Arrays: +10% innate shield penetration solely on beam arrays (not on omni).

    This still keeps the cannons the top viable dps solution, but causes DBBs and Beam Arrays to be worth using when you don't wanna play cannons.

    Anything more would upset the balancing of the game. (Which someone's gonna get ironic about).
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    felisean wrote: »
    the only thing i would change would be to remove the dmg penality faw got some time ago. i guess that one is not needed anymore

    I agree on the Damage penalty, but I still think the Accuracy penalty is way overboard. A 50 penalty on FAW 1? Who thought that was a good idea? :lol:
    casualsto wrote: »
    DBBs: +25 Accuracy when running dual beams (solely on dual beams)

    I like this idea as well.

    I believe the only real issues with single beams are the result of the nerfs to the Fire At Will skill. The biggest thing with DBB is that they require all the effort of DHC's just with less payoff. Giving them an inate ability that only applied to them (not Singles or Omni's) is a great idea. I would prefer more of a straight damage buff to increased accuracy since it will be using FAW instead of Scatter Volley, but really anything would help.

    I don't think DBB's are in as bad a place as some people think. I run a character with DBB's on an Andorian Escort and it hits very hard. The gap though between that build and the same build with Cannons is a little wider then it should be in my opinion.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    edited June 2019

    I would prefer to see some of the FAW nerfs revised, but overall I agree this isn't an issue. Beam builds are still perfectly capable of ripping their way unopposed through all of the games content.

    Oh that‘s for sure. :)

    For stuff like de-buff-supporter and tanks I’d even considering them better due to their nature of the wide arcs and random targeting within their reach.

    Overall I think @pwstolemyname gave cool input by suggesting earlier having as many different builds distributed on our toons as possible. Granted this is not easy in the beginning as much more is to be learned but it pays off at it keeps the same content more interesting to cope with not to mention to grow much more independent of possible nerfs towards discrete builds.

    Cannons, beams, torpedoes, exotics… all of them can be min/maxed to a point where you can easily cope with everything the game throws at you and much, much more. What’s also rewarding is to see how different the result in different maps can get here.

    So far I always only thought mines where a joke. Then I ran into @pottsey5g who taught me better and who blasts with us though elite maps on mines as if they never had any issues. B)

    Edit: Also cool new signature Sea; you are truly a master of PvE in STO by now and teaming up with you has become a guarantee for success for me.
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • sennahcheribsennahcherib Member Posts: 2,823 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    And after the Cannon 'nerf', they will begin to sell Traits, Masteries, and Consoles that will 'enhance' them again. ;)

    This has been Cryptic's trend for some time now, yes.

    Frankly, it's one of the least desirable things about STO. Sell Power, nerf power and pass it off as 'balance,' sell more power,. repeat.

    Simple solution...don't change with the meta and they will stop doing it. My builds for the most part hasn't changed in years.

    same thing for me, I use always the same builds since a long time.

    first of all, i don't want to spend my time to change my builds at each changes + the cost would be too high. Only my main has different builds, but if the game changes again, i'm not going to make modifications to her current builds.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User

    So far I always only thought mines where a joke. Then I ran into @pottsey5g who taught me better and who blasts with us though elite maps on mines as if they never had any issues. B)

    Agreed, he absolutely knows what he's doing. :smile:
    Edit: Also cool new signature Sea; you are truly a master of PvE in STO by now and teaming up with you has become a guarantee for success for me.

    Coming from a player of your caliber that means quite a bit. Thank you.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 4,165 Arc User
    Bit surprised to see my name in a beams v cannons thread. I thought everyone knows the only use for energy weapons is to sell for energy credits to buy more explosives.

    Thanks for the comments and if I did go for energy weapons it would be DBB with camera type set to chase camera.
    Camera mode can make a big difference to how a weapon system feels.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    I would say only really dual beams, and single cannon has need to be adjusted, though it would not be a bad thing to see abit of shift away from dual cannons an dual heavy cannons being really close in style. I actually think that giving the different weapon types a different effect, or bonus under the effect of some of the weapon buffs might be interesting, even if it is just the dual beam bank an single cannon. We have so many weapons that adjusting how some fo them work with the weapon buffs, to make them have niches via that could add some depth of choice.
This discussion has been closed.