test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Federation Battlecruiser Weapon Loadouts, A Statistical Analysis
devencombs
Member Posts: 225 Arc User
The battlecruiser is the most offensively oriented cruiser in the game. While cruisers have four weapon slots fore and aft, battlecruisers have five up front and three aft. With weapon slots that are seemingly more offensive than escorts or destroyers, some players, including myself, might wonder if a more offensive weapon loadout would be better suited to a battlecruiser. Instead of all beam arrays, could a battlecruiser deal more damage with dual beam banks or dual heavy cannons? I decided to find out, because apparently I had too much dil and EC just taking up space.
My engineer toon is a level 65 Fleet Admiral, piloting a Section 31 Command Heavy Battlecruiser (CHB), T6-X. I spent way too much dil and EC on dual beam banks, dual heavy cannons, and turrets to make three weapon loadouts. The first loadout is what I like to call a Broadside build with four beam arrays and one wide angle quantum torp up front, and two beam arrays and one omni-direction array aft. The next build is dual beam banks: five DBBs in front, two beam arrays and an omni-directional aft. The third build is dual heavy cannons: five DHCs front, three turrets aft.
I decided to conduct five combat trials with each build and compare their damage outputs from recorded combat logs. All trials would be conducted in the Defense of Starbase One STF (Advanced).
Below are the links to my builds on STO Academy. Unfortunately, the skill planner does not have a choice for the Section 31 CHB. I was forced to choose the Fleet Battlecruiser T5-U, since it has the same weapon and console loadout (except for the experimental upgrade). The BoFF layout is completely different. Please refer to the notes for BoFF abilities with each build. The Lt. Commander Tactical Officer is the only station that changes with each build.
Broadside (BSD) Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/79aca8f3aaae08d1a4e38f9b0ec46b7f
DBB Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/1bd785c01e3ff9b5675eee40ed46b7c4
DHC Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/ceac2e73e80ee3306ad2803c26f5c6ab
The ship has console and command abilities that, if used, could alter the damage output of each build. I wanted to keep the results as generic as possible, so I intentionally refrained from using console and command abilities in each trial. The one ability I did use was the Deploy Swarm ability that is unique to the Section 31 CHB. The reason I used this ability is because it gives the ship a 15% flight speed and turn rate increase, which would help with the DBB and DHC builds. To keep the damage outputs as consistent as possible, I activated Deploy Swarm for all trials.
Once I completed all the trials, I used the STO Combat Meter to read the logs and get the DPS, Total Damage, and Kills for each trial. Then I wrote a Python script to make bar charts from the numbers. The next several image links are the bar charts. Please refer to each one. Here are the results.
https://imgur.com/aMzgbk6
This chart is a measure of the DPS outputs for each build across all trials. BSD in blue, DBB in green, DHC in red. As you can see, the BSD build performed noticeably better than the DBB or DHC builds.
https://imgur.com/LCKmCIF
Here we have the total damage dealt in each trial. This results in this chart are more varied, but again it seems that the BSD build wins out.
https://imgur.com/VyGjTC4
This chart show the number of kills I inflicted in each trial. This chart is the most varied of all. It might seem that the DHC build is more effective in this regard, though the BSD build shows more consistency.
These charts are informative, but let's look at the averages as well.
https://imgur.com/aSZzQpb
The average of each build for all trials. From the first DPS chart, these results are as expected and the BSD build is the clear winner.
https://imgur.com/JJfenNU
Again, the BSD build is the clear winner for average total damage.
https://imgur.com/ZDo4Amd
Finally, the average of all kills in each trial. The BSD build once again takes first place.
For each category, the broadside build takes first place in performance, with DHC taking second place and just barely ahead of DBB in third. Some players may not be surprised at these results. As for me, I'm a little bit surprised.
Cruisers are big, slow, and tanky. The vast majority of effective cruiser builds is nearly all beam arrays, one omni-directional array, and the occasional torpedo launcher. Battlecruisers are supposed to be a bit smaller and slightly more maneuverable. With an aft weapon slot moved to the front, one might think that a battlecruiser could make more effective use of forward facing weapons.
But battlecruisers are still cruisers. No matter how many consoles and other turn rate upgrades you put on a battlecruiser, you can never get it to match the turn rate of an escort or destroyer. Thus, forward facing weapons are just not as useful on a battlecruiser as they are on escorts and destroyers.
But I believe there is another more important reason why the broadside build wins out. Even if you could get a battlecruiser to match the turn rate of the average escort or destroyer, it is still an engineering focused ship, which is evidenced by the bridge officer layout. The Section 31 CHB only has a Lt. Commander tactical bridge officer seat, with a Universal Lt. seat. Other battlecruiser layouts are similar. Tier five and six escorts and destroyers often have two, sometimes three, tactical bridge officer seats, including a Commander. These ships can make the most use of forward facing weapons, while the same weapons on a battlecruiser are hindered by the lack of abilities.
Battlecruisers are very offensive ships, but they are not escorts. From now on I'll be using the broadside build for this ship.
If anyone thinks otherwise, please contribute. If anyone disagrees with the way I set up this experiment or my interpretation of the results, or how I could improve on this experiment, please contribute as well. Also, I am always looking for ways to improve my builds and gameplay. If anyone has a suggestion for such, you are more than welcome.
Thanks for reading and I'll see you in game.
My engineer toon is a level 65 Fleet Admiral, piloting a Section 31 Command Heavy Battlecruiser (CHB), T6-X. I spent way too much dil and EC on dual beam banks, dual heavy cannons, and turrets to make three weapon loadouts. The first loadout is what I like to call a Broadside build with four beam arrays and one wide angle quantum torp up front, and two beam arrays and one omni-direction array aft. The next build is dual beam banks: five DBBs in front, two beam arrays and an omni-directional aft. The third build is dual heavy cannons: five DHCs front, three turrets aft.
I decided to conduct five combat trials with each build and compare their damage outputs from recorded combat logs. All trials would be conducted in the Defense of Starbase One STF (Advanced).
Below are the links to my builds on STO Academy. Unfortunately, the skill planner does not have a choice for the Section 31 CHB. I was forced to choose the Fleet Battlecruiser T5-U, since it has the same weapon and console loadout (except for the experimental upgrade). The BoFF layout is completely different. Please refer to the notes for BoFF abilities with each build. The Lt. Commander Tactical Officer is the only station that changes with each build.
Broadside (BSD) Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/79aca8f3aaae08d1a4e38f9b0ec46b7f
DBB Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/1bd785c01e3ff9b5675eee40ed46b7c4
DHC Build
https://skillplanner.stoacademy.com/ceac2e73e80ee3306ad2803c26f5c6ab
The ship has console and command abilities that, if used, could alter the damage output of each build. I wanted to keep the results as generic as possible, so I intentionally refrained from using console and command abilities in each trial. The one ability I did use was the Deploy Swarm ability that is unique to the Section 31 CHB. The reason I used this ability is because it gives the ship a 15% flight speed and turn rate increase, which would help with the DBB and DHC builds. To keep the damage outputs as consistent as possible, I activated Deploy Swarm for all trials.
Once I completed all the trials, I used the STO Combat Meter to read the logs and get the DPS, Total Damage, and Kills for each trial. Then I wrote a Python script to make bar charts from the numbers. The next several image links are the bar charts. Please refer to each one. Here are the results.
https://imgur.com/aMzgbk6
This chart is a measure of the DPS outputs for each build across all trials. BSD in blue, DBB in green, DHC in red. As you can see, the BSD build performed noticeably better than the DBB or DHC builds.
https://imgur.com/LCKmCIF
Here we have the total damage dealt in each trial. This results in this chart are more varied, but again it seems that the BSD build wins out.
https://imgur.com/VyGjTC4
This chart show the number of kills I inflicted in each trial. This chart is the most varied of all. It might seem that the DHC build is more effective in this regard, though the BSD build shows more consistency.
These charts are informative, but let's look at the averages as well.
https://imgur.com/aSZzQpb
The average of each build for all trials. From the first DPS chart, these results are as expected and the BSD build is the clear winner.
https://imgur.com/JJfenNU
Again, the BSD build is the clear winner for average total damage.
https://imgur.com/ZDo4Amd
Finally, the average of all kills in each trial. The BSD build once again takes first place.
For each category, the broadside build takes first place in performance, with DHC taking second place and just barely ahead of DBB in third. Some players may not be surprised at these results. As for me, I'm a little bit surprised.
Cruisers are big, slow, and tanky. The vast majority of effective cruiser builds is nearly all beam arrays, one omni-directional array, and the occasional torpedo launcher. Battlecruisers are supposed to be a bit smaller and slightly more maneuverable. With an aft weapon slot moved to the front, one might think that a battlecruiser could make more effective use of forward facing weapons.
But battlecruisers are still cruisers. No matter how many consoles and other turn rate upgrades you put on a battlecruiser, you can never get it to match the turn rate of an escort or destroyer. Thus, forward facing weapons are just not as useful on a battlecruiser as they are on escorts and destroyers.
But I believe there is another more important reason why the broadside build wins out. Even if you could get a battlecruiser to match the turn rate of the average escort or destroyer, it is still an engineering focused ship, which is evidenced by the bridge officer layout. The Section 31 CHB only has a Lt. Commander tactical bridge officer seat, with a Universal Lt. seat. Other battlecruiser layouts are similar. Tier five and six escorts and destroyers often have two, sometimes three, tactical bridge officer seats, including a Commander. These ships can make the most use of forward facing weapons, while the same weapons on a battlecruiser are hindered by the lack of abilities.
Battlecruisers are very offensive ships, but they are not escorts. From now on I'll be using the broadside build for this ship.
If anyone thinks otherwise, please contribute. If anyone disagrees with the way I set up this experiment or my interpretation of the results, or how I could improve on this experiment, please contribute as well. Also, I am always looking for ways to improve my builds and gameplay. If anyone has a suggestion for such, you are more than welcome.
Thanks for reading and I'll see you in game.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A good point with the rank of Tactical abilities, particularly with cannons having a Commander rank for their rank 3 abilities. DBB builds work slightly better with Rank 3 Beam abilities being Lt. Comm., though you'd lose out on a rank 3 Attack Pattern still. Total number of Tac abilities is less important than the ranks, and most of the time having three ensign tac seats is actually seen as a bit of a detriment that often require using Lockbox abilities as filler.
Nothing wrong with broadsiding, which can put out plenty of DPS, particularly with beams being canon for many ships.
Defense of Starbase One has a lot of little faster moving targets that may make broadside and BFAW the most effective but there are other maps were dual beam banks or cannons would likely do far better.
I chose Defense of Starbase One because there are a lot of enemy ships to shoot, but not a whole lot else to do, except pick all the loot drops. In my experiment I wanted to focus only on how well each weapon loadout performs. There certainly are a lot of fast ships to shoot, but heavier ships show up too. To me, this STF seemed like the most generic scenario for testing weapon loadouts. You're probably right, other missions could be better played with DBB or DHC loadouts, but I can't test all of them, and in most cases battlecruisers will do best with a broadside loadout.
Okay, thanks for the suggestion. I've got the reputation, so I'll make a Prevailing Engine and see how it works. What about the rest of the set?
Agreed, the map chosen greatly favors the Broadside Fire At Will build.
Ship traits are a huge part of it as well, while Cannons and Dual Beam Banks only start to shine with the application of certain traits, Fire At Will builds don't really require this. While a broad side build gets a nice boost from something like re-directing arrays, the build mostly works the same without it, especially against multiple small targets.
You start to see the advantage of Dual Cannons when you add traits like Withering Barrage or Superweapon Ingenuity for Dual Beam Banks running overload instead of FAW.
On a map like SB1 though, FAW and Scatter Volley builds will always look superior to builds using Beam Overload or Rapid Fire. Broadside builds using FAW are also the most forgiving with piloting, a 'front facing' build takes more practice and skill to optimize.
I would outfit my ship with all omnis if I could, but you can only fit one.
The two-piece set is OK, and the Innervated shields has an interesting proc where you can get an extra critical chance and damage when taking damage, but not much else note-worthy for PvE beyond that, just the engines are usually good enough with the rest to taste. I'd go with the Fortified Engines since you can easily load up on heals to proc it on a Battlecruiser. The Innervated is more for if you have torps that you can pre-load a spread or high yield on the way to the enemies, but on a energy only build without extra 'mule' abilities that are there just to proc it, you want to hit your fire mode like FAW right before the enemy, which can make you zoom off then.
The 'meta' seems to have drifted to using the Discovery shields for it's shield penetration for weapons, along with the Discovery core to get the two-set for a very large regeneration. Then, the [colcrit] deflector you already have, though usually [drainx]x2 rerolled to [ShCap] and [HullCap] for more durability to keep [colcrit] and Tyler's Duality Rep Trait up. I personally tend to go a bit old-school with a core to reduce power drain and Iconian shields to automatically remove debuffs over time.
Hmm, I didn't know that. I currently don't have any omnis that are part of a set, but I'll keep that in mind.
For Phaser, you can get the Trilithium Omni from the mission “Beyond the Nexus”, though that beam is yellow, not red like the rest of your weapons. Two-set with the console from that mission is nice too, giving you a Haste buff (you energy weapons fire and cycle faster).
A couple of the consoles including the Hydrodynamics Compensator and House Martok engineering console help with turn rate. The Competitive engines add to this and have multiple triggers for it's overcharge turn rate boost. Seems that Battlecruisers can be pretty quick ships these days.
Will be taking the Arbiter through some RATFOS this evening but initial testing on a couple patrols went very well.
Here's what I used... A2B Arbiter Battlecruiser