Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
"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.
The actual visible weapon hardpoints on the ships (arrays or turrets) have nothing to do with what you "slot" on your weapon slots - you don't put anything "fore" or "aft" anyway. I always thought about it like a representation of control modules determining fire modi - after all, if you slot cannons or turrets on a galaxy class, these are still fired from the visible phaser arrays.
I agree that there should be simply "weapon slots" and the field of fire should be determined by the physical hardpoints, however STO is not the game for complex details like that. "fore" and "aft" weapon slots work well enough for the system as is.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
You can't remove the omni restriction without buffing turrets and single cannons. Cannons already require higher tier boff slots to get buffs, seem to have less ship traits to make them good, and obviously turrets sacrifice a lot of damage for the full 360 while single cannons offer very little compared to beams, especially omni beams.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
You can't remove the omni restriction without buffing turrets and single cannons. Cannons already require higher tier boff slots to get buffs, seem to have less ship traits to make them good, and obviously turrets sacrifice a lot of damage for the full 360 while single cannons offer very little compared to beams, especially omni beams.
Turrets are fine imo (dual cannons more than make up for the reduced damage), but I do agree that single cannons need a buff if there's any hope of them ever being competitive. Based on the numbers on the wiki the combined base damage of a single cannon + turret is lower than the combined base damage of 2 beam arrays, even though the cannon + turret isn't as easy to keep on target as beam arrays (though it's much easier than dual cannon + turret).
Increasing single cannon base damage at Mk XV by 89 DPS (and proportional increases to lower Mks) would put a cannon + turret right in the middle between 2 beam arrays and a dual cannon + turret which imo is where it probably should be for proper balance, but that would have the awkward side effect of making a single cannon deal more damage than a dual beam bank (I don't think that would be an actual problem, just a "that seems weird" kind of thing", actually addressing it would require a much broader rebalancing of energy weapon damage values and significantly more time from the devs).
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
The actual visible weapon hardpoints on the ships (arrays or turrets) have nothing to do with what you "slot" on your weapon slots - you don't put anything "fore" or "aft" anyway. I always thought about it like a representation of control modules determining fire modi - after all, if you slot cannons or turrets on a galaxy class, these are still fired from the visible phaser arrays.
I agree that there should be simply "weapon slots" and the field of fire should be determined by the physical hardpoints, however STO is not the game for complex details like that. "fore" and "aft" weapon slots work well enough for the system as is.
If Activision could do it in Starfleet Command 1, 2 AND 3, on a much simpler engine, and their games are way older, there's no excuse for Cryptic not to be able to do it on theirs, especially as they have weapons arcs already. They can remove them from the weapons themselves and assign them to the hardpoints, and we know this because the game ALREADY does it to decide which 'visual' hardpoint it's firing from.
What this is, is folk demanding the game become even more lazier, and easier than it already is. It also makes it even easier for the AFK-Auto-fire crowd to disguise what they are doing. Instead of an 8/3 Beam auto-firing ship, they now can have an 8/8 Beam auto-firing ship.
Seriously, how much more dumbing down of space combat do people actually want???
Engineering sense? In a game where you can create spatial anomalies, regenerate hull with a button press or hell just by itself.
OK, sure. /sarcasm.
Not that I disagree with the latter part mind you, you could be onto something there.
Oh trust me, I have my issues with the 'space-magic'.
"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.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
Ok not everyone plays a sovereign or even a cruiser.
So your suggesting I slot energy weapons on a torpedo B'rel ? Or a mine laying T'varo ?
How would your suggestion look... on as an example a brel... we go from 4/2 to what 3 energy weapons 1 torp and 1 rear energy slot + a useless rear torpedo slot ?
Sure sure adding more free weapons to peoples cruisers would make them happy... but that is a very small part of the game.
Plenty of people playing science ships with zero energy weapons... or cruisers/sci/raider mine layers... or full on torpedo boats of all flavors.
What your suggesting would have made sense in year 1... in year 11 after multiple torpedo and mine tweaks... and traits (many of which cost people lots of real $) completely changing the mechanic would probably have them leaving.
I mentioned experimental slots... cause its the closest thing the game has to a "heavy" weapon slot. People are free to fly a ship with an EXP slot and slot things like the dual launcher ect if they want a non weapon slot torpedo.
Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything.
I don't personally run one because the concept just feels wrong to me, but there are builds with torpedoes in every forward slot and mines in every aft slot. Builds like that WOULD be broken by your suggestion.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
Ok not everyone plays a sovereign or even a cruiser.
So your suggesting I slot energy weapons on a torpedo B'rel ? Or a mine laying T'varo ?
How would your suggestion look... on as an example a brel... we go from 4/2 to what 3 energy weapons 1 torp and 1 rear energy slot + a useless rear torpedo slot ?
Sure sure adding more free weapons to peoples cruisers would make them happy... but that is a very small part of the game.
Plenty of people playing science ships with zero energy weapons... or cruisers/sci/raider mine layers... or full on torpedo boats of all flavors.
What your suggesting would have made sense in year 1... in year 11 after multiple torpedo and mine tweaks... and traits (many of which cost people lots of real $) completely changing the mechanic would probably have them leaving.
I mentioned experimental slots... cause its the closest thing the game has to a "heavy" weapon slot. People are free to fly a ship with an EXP slot and slot things like the dual launcher ect if they want a non weapon slot torpedo.
I don't play Cruisers much, but I do play Sci ships, and I run with Beams and Torps cause that's what I've always done, and that's how MY build works. I don't care for the 'meta' of running all beams or all torps/mines. My suggestion puts ships to what they're supposed to be equipped with, after all, literally every ship in canon runs with energy weapons and some sort of torpedoes. And you know what, Cryptic can even put more torp slots on ships like the Nebula etc that are more suited for 'assault'. Torpedoes are heavy weapons and they should have they're own slots. The Experimental Slot used to be known as the Heavy Weapon slot, but they changed the name.
Your comment about it breaking a 'large chunk of the player base builds' is wholly disingenous.
"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.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
Ok not everyone plays a sovereign or even a cruiser.
So your suggesting I slot energy weapons on a torpedo B'rel ? Or a mine laying T'varo ?
How would your suggestion look... on as an example a brel... we go from 4/2 to what 3 energy weapons 1 torp and 1 rear energy slot + a useless rear torpedo slot ?
Sure sure adding more free weapons to peoples cruisers would make them happy... but that is a very small part of the game.
Plenty of people playing science ships with zero energy weapons... or cruisers/sci/raider mine layers... or full on torpedo boats of all flavors.
What your suggesting would have made sense in year 1... in year 11 after multiple torpedo and mine tweaks... and traits (many of which cost people lots of real $) completely changing the mechanic would probably have them leaving.
I mentioned experimental slots... cause its the closest thing the game has to a "heavy" weapon slot. People are free to fly a ship with an EXP slot and slot things like the dual launcher ect if they want a non weapon slot torpedo.
I don't play Cruisers much, but I do play Sci ships, and I run with Beams and Torps cause that's what I've always done, and that's how MY build works. I don't care for the 'meta' of running all beams or all torps/mines. My suggestion puts ships to what they're supposed to be equipped with, after all, literally every ship in canon runs with energy weapons and some sort of torpedoes. And you know what, Cryptic can even put more torp slots on ships like the Nebula etc that are more suited for 'assault'. Torpedoes are heavy weapons and they should have they're own slots. The Experimental Slot used to be known as the Heavy Weapon slot, but they changed the name.
Your comment about it breaking a 'large chunk of the player base builds' is wholly disingenous.
Believe it or not... considering its a Trek game. Most people are actually playing a game... and not a Star trek manual simulator.
Yes taking away energy hard points to replace them with torpedo only hardpoints would break every players current build. Would everyone be upset... no the game does have a handful of RPers, still most would. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
Ok not everyone plays a sovereign or even a cruiser.
So your suggesting I slot energy weapons on a torpedo B'rel ? Or a mine laying T'varo ?
How would your suggestion look... on as an example a brel... we go from 4/2 to what 3 energy weapons 1 torp and 1 rear energy slot + a useless rear torpedo slot ?
Sure sure adding more free weapons to peoples cruisers would make them happy... but that is a very small part of the game.
Plenty of people playing science ships with zero energy weapons... or cruisers/sci/raider mine layers... or full on torpedo boats of all flavors.
What your suggesting would have made sense in year 1... in year 11 after multiple torpedo and mine tweaks... and traits (many of which cost people lots of real $) completely changing the mechanic would probably have them leaving.
I mentioned experimental slots... cause its the closest thing the game has to a "heavy" weapon slot. People are free to fly a ship with an EXP slot and slot things like the dual launcher ect if they want a non weapon slot torpedo.
I don't play Cruisers much, but I do play Sci ships, and I run with Beams and Torps cause that's what I've always done, and that's how MY build works. I don't care for the 'meta' of running all beams or all torps/mines. My suggestion puts ships to what they're supposed to be equipped with, after all, literally every ship in canon runs with energy weapons and some sort of torpedoes. And you know what, Cryptic can even put more torp slots on ships like the Nebula etc that are more suited for 'assault'. Torpedoes are heavy weapons and they should have they're own slots. The Experimental Slot used to be known as the Heavy Weapon slot, but they changed the name.
Your comment about it breaking a 'large chunk of the player base builds' is wholly disingenous.
Believe it or not... considering its a Trek game. Most people are actually playing a game... and not a Star trek manual simulator.
Yes taking away energy hard points to replace them with torpedo only hardpoints would break every players current build. Would everyone be upset... no the game does have a handful of RPers, still most would. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
No it's not disingenuous. You're presuming to speak for the player base and presuming knowledge you have absolutely no access to. That's what's disingenuous. Only Cryptic knows what the entire player-base is using. ADDING Torpedo hardpoints seperate and in addition to the current hardpoints would BENEFIT most players, especially Beam only builds, and it certainly would not break my build, it would strengthen it.
If Cryptic wants to 'evolve' the game further, giving more 'canon' hardpoints and weapon slots on ships is a vastly better suggestion than slapping 8 Omnis on to a ship to satisfy folk who just want to be even lazier.
"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.
My suggestion puts ships to what they're supposed to be equipped with, after all, literally every ship in canon runs with energy weapons and some sort of torpedoes. And you know what, Cryptic can even put more torp slots on ships like the Nebula etc that are more suited for 'assault'. Torpedoes are heavy weapons and they should have they're own slots. The Experimental Slot used to be known as the Heavy Weapon slot, but they changed the name.
If they had done it in the beginning, then it would be fine, hell I'd even prefer it. But a drastic change like that 12 years after release would only TRIBBLE people off.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
The actual visible weapon hardpoints on the ships (arrays or turrets) have nothing to do with what you "slot" on your weapon slots - you don't put anything "fore" or "aft" anyway. I always thought about it like a representation of control modules determining fire modi - after all, if you slot cannons or turrets on a galaxy class, these are still fired from the visible phaser arrays.
I agree that there should be simply "weapon slots" and the field of fire should be determined by the physical hardpoints, however STO is not the game for complex details like that. "fore" and "aft" weapon slots work well enough for the system as is.
If Activision could do it in Starfleet Command 1, 2 AND 3, on a much simpler engine, and their games are way older, there's no excuse for Cryptic not to be able to do it on theirs, especially as they have weapons arcs already. They can remove them from the weapons themselves and assign them to the hardpoints, and we know this because the game ALREADY does it to decide which 'visual' hardpoint it's firing from.
What this is, is folk demanding the game become even more lazier, and easier than it already is. It also makes it even easier for the AFK-Auto-fire crowd to disguise what they are doing. Instead of an 8/3 Beam auto-firing ship, they now can have an 8/8 Beam auto-firing ship.
Seriously, how much more dumbing down of space combat do people actually want???
Engineering sense? In a game where you can create spatial anomalies, regenerate hull with a button press or hell just by itself.
OK, sure. /sarcasm.
Not that I disagree with the latter part mind you, you could be onto something there.
Oh trust me, I have my issues with the 'space-magic'.
Angrytarg has it right, phasers (and presumably but not necessarily other energy weapons in the show) are not monolithic standalone weapons like one of today's shell-firing naval guns. Where an emitter is placed does determine what arc that particular emitter can fire in, but a particular shipboard phaser can have multiple emitters looking out into different arcs.
In fact, when TMP came out and the fans were not happy about the ship bristling with phasers the official word from Paramount about those matching ball turrets on the top and bottom of the 2270s Enterprise saucer was that each vertical pair were ONE phaser with two emitters, the arrangement was there to widen the arc and not to have more guns. The main part of the phasers were buried inside the hull in rooms adjacent to one of the phaser control rooms just like the one on deck 5 shown in Balance of Terror.
Photon torpedo launcher placements, if taken too literally, are another problem for a game spanning as much time as STO does since the systems were so different from each other in the shows. The TOS Enterprise had at least six forward tubes according to dialog, and had an unspecified number of aft tubes (behind the scenes information pins it down as six forward, four rear because Roddenberry and Jefferies decided to use the most common WWII USN submarine arrangement of the tubes). Those tubes would then be outclassed in the 2270s by only two Mk VI tubes forward and one MK VI aft.
Getting into such nitpicking detail would just overcomplicate the game so they take more of a 'what they do' than a 'how they are they placed" tack on the subject. It does cause some problems like the omnibeam issue, but overall it is a reasonable compromise, though they really should ditch the undocumented nonsense and put it as ANY TWO omnis so people can run two sets without having to resort to silly kludges like taking the turret for one of them if the choice is even available instead of just an omnibeam to complete the set (like the Martok set) and the KCB or simply any three omnibeams.
Or at the very least put some kind of explicit identifier printed on the tooltip for the things (like 'A' and 'B') and simply say you can only have one 'A' emplacement omnibeam and one 'B' emplacement omnibeam on a ship or whatever (though that still has the nasty set problem unless the devs update all sets containing omnibeams to also include turrets).
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
A couple of things, you are not the authority on what is "engineering sense" and what isn't, nor are you an authority on what is "common sense" and what isn't. The game doesn't need to be hyper realistic to be fun and in my book it shouldn't be. Going by the lore of Trek itself, every ship in this game should have far more weapon slots than they actually do. The Scimitar as a prime example should have at least 42 weapon slots going by movie and behind the scenes specs. The Sovereign, Galaxy line, and many others should also have far far more than what they do now. Weapon slots and the like are limited to no more than 8 purely for gameplay purposes. If one omni were to be blocked by line of sight, it's not unreasonable to assume there would be other spots the weapons could fire from.
Far as gameplay purposes go I find the notion of keeping the omni beams restricted due to "engineering sense" as ridiculous as folks who argued against alternative methods to get the Kobali Samsar and other event ships when we first learned about Phoenix boxes years ago. Folks said "well I was there and I worked for it, they should've been there too" or my personal favorite "them having a new way to get the ship cheapens my achievement". Then there were folks like me who were there for the event who simply didn't care because that other person being able to get the Samsar through an alternate method had ZERO effect on me at all.
Likewise, folks being able to utilize all omni beams on their build has ZERO effect on you or your ability to play the game just like folks being able to utilize all turrets has zero effect on your ability to play the game. In fact you won't even know they're using all omni beams unless you run a combat log or they straight up tell you that's what they're doing. Also who is going to hold a phaser to your head and tell you that you have to use all omnis or use (choice of build here)? No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Arguing that folks shouldn't be allowed to have all omnis on their ship because "engineering sense" is no different than saying folks shouldn't be allowed to put Polaron on a Galaxy class because the Federation doesn't use polaron weapons. If you think using all omnis doesn't make engineering sense on a ship, then don't use all omni beams.
"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
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
A couple of things, you are not the authority on what is "engineering sense" and what isn't, nor are you an authority on what is "common sense" and what isn't. The game doesn't need to be hyper realistic to be fun and in my book it shouldn't be. Going by the lore of Trek itself, every ship in this game should have far more weapon slots than they actually do. The Scimitar as a prime example should have at least 42 weapon slots going by movie and behind the scenes specs. The Sovereign, Galaxy line, and many others should also have far far more than what they do now. Weapon slots and the like are limited to no more than 8 purely for gameplay purposes. If one omni were to be blocked by line of sight, it's not unreasonable to assume there would be other spots the weapons could fire from.
Far as gameplay purposes go I find the notion of keeping the omni beams restricted due to "engineering sense" as ridiculous as folks who argued against alternative methods to get the Kobali Samsar and other event ships when we first learned about Phoenix boxes years ago. Folks said "well I was there and I worked for it, they should've been there too" or my personal favorite "them having a new way to get the ship cheapens my achievement". Then there were folks like me who were there for the event who simply didn't care because that other person being able to get the Samsar through an alternate method had ZERO effect on me at all.
Likewise, folks being able to utilize all omni beams on their build has ZERO effect on you or your ability to play the game just like folks being able to utilize all turrets has zero effect on your ability to play the game. In fact you won't even know they're using all omni beams unless you run a combat log or they straight up tell you that's what they're doing. Also who is going to hold a phaser to your head and tell you that you have to use all omnis or use (choice of build here)? No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Arguing that folks shouldn't be allowed to have all omnis on their ship because "engineering sense" is no different than saying folks shouldn't be allowed to put Polaron on a Galaxy class because the Federation doesn't use polaron weapons. If you think using all omnis doesn't make engineering sense on a ship, then don't use all omni beams.
Well, this is an unusually cold response from yourself to a constructive argument. My arguments rail against making things even more easier than they already are, not against energy weapon types. It's a shame you can't see that.
"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.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
A couple of things, you are not the authority on what is "engineering sense" and what isn't, nor are you an authority on what is "common sense" and what isn't. The game doesn't need to be hyper realistic to be fun and in my book it shouldn't be. Going by the lore of Trek itself, every ship in this game should have far more weapon slots than they actually do. The Scimitar as a prime example should have at least 42 weapon slots going by movie and behind the scenes specs. The Sovereign, Galaxy line, and many others should also have far far more than what they do now. Weapon slots and the like are limited to no more than 8 purely for gameplay purposes. If one omni were to be blocked by line of sight, it's not unreasonable to assume there would be other spots the weapons could fire from.
Far as gameplay purposes go I find the notion of keeping the omni beams restricted due to "engineering sense" as ridiculous as folks who argued against alternative methods to get the Kobali Samsar and other event ships when we first learned about Phoenix boxes years ago. Folks said "well I was there and I worked for it, they should've been there too" or my personal favorite "them having a new way to get the ship cheapens my achievement". Then there were folks like me who were there for the event who simply didn't care because that other person being able to get the Samsar through an alternate method had ZERO effect on me at all.
Likewise, folks being able to utilize all omni beams on their build has ZERO effect on you or your ability to play the game just like folks being able to utilize all turrets has zero effect on your ability to play the game. In fact you won't even know they're using all omni beams unless you run a combat log or they straight up tell you that's what they're doing. Also who is going to hold a phaser to your head and tell you that you have to use all omnis or use (choice of build here)? No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Arguing that folks shouldn't be allowed to have all omnis on their ship because "engineering sense" is no different than saying folks shouldn't be allowed to put Polaron on a Galaxy class because the Federation doesn't use polaron weapons. If you think using all omnis doesn't make engineering sense on a ship, then don't use all omni beams.
Well, this is an unusually cold response from yourself to a constructive argument. My arguments rail against making things even more easier than they already are, not against energy weapon types. It's a shame you can't see that.
His comments are wholly appropriate to your combative and condescending responses. You make a ton of assumptions, criticize anyone that disagrees for that same action and imply that your implementation is the only one with a 'modicum of common sense.'
Just to touch on your questionable 'point' though, engineering sense has nothing to do with anything. The Omni Beam itself is the weapon you slot into your ship. The 'in game' explanation is not necessarily that it's one beam firing in a circle.. an 'omni beam' could simply be an array with hardpoints at multiple points of the ship and the ship targeting re-directs the energy to the appropriate point based on the enemies position relative to the ship. The delay from re-routing power means that the beam isn't quite as powerful as a fixed beam but has the advantage of following the target.. there done. Now can you pipe down and let people build their ships the way they want? or does that also somehow ruin your personal game play experience?
Frankly, he was kind to you. It was a rather civil discussion until you decided to imply that only your way is the right way. The request is a game play request, the lore can be explained in whatever method needed. This is not an actual Star Trek show, it's a video game and this is a game play related request. We all thought that was obvious, but apparently, it's not.
Or at the very least put some kind of explicit identifier printed on the tooltip for the things (like 'A' and 'B') and simply say you can only have one 'A' emplacement omnibeam and one 'B' emplacement omnibeam on a ship or whatever (though that still has the nasty set problem unless the devs update all sets containing omnibeams to also include turrets).
We pretty much have that already (though not explicitly stated) because the current rule allows for one that is part of a set and one that isn't, and whether or not it's part of a set is clearly labeled in the tooltip.
I think the problem is that people don't always know that rule. I know it because of sites like this, but how would anyone that just plays the game and doesn't visit this site or reddit know that you can only equip one set and one crafted?
I am not aware of anywhere in game where that information is given.
Aren't turrets already aft-only? For some reason I think they are....
No. In fact there are a few Youtubers that have put together a few All Turret "Lazy Builds" which are rather amusing. You can twaek them up to be respectable enough for solo content grinding. Plus they look really cool with the animated turret effects on the new Emerald Chain Juggernaut. You kind of get this Battlestar Galactica effect.
> @seaofsorrows said: > I think the problem is that people don't always know that rule. I know it because of sites like this, but how would anyone that just plays the game and doesn't visit this site or reddit know that you can only equip one set and one crafted? > > I am not aware of anywhere in game where that information is given.
The rule, like a bunch of other game mechanics, is not documented anywhere in the game. Only on third party sites. STO explains basically nothing aside from how to move your character and where to find one of the gazillion submenus for any of the reputations, doffs, armadas etc. - but how all of those things really work is only found out if you look it up on the internet.
Example: By playing the game you gave no idea what cat1-3 buffs are and which stats are actually altered by slotting a console.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I didn't know what Cat-2 was for a whole year when I started. Never took notice of that one little word "bonus".
The basics of shipbuilding are easy, big numbers better (mostly) but Cryptic follow the pattern of "we'll let the players figure it out" and then we end up with situations like what happened with this very bundles account wide trait, fortunately the more vocal players got it changed (plus there was a financial incentive on Cryptic's side).
A lot of games follow that pattern of introducing mechanics that get hidden away for higher end players to find. If I was less jaded than I am, I'd say it was on purpose to build communities faster.
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
A couple of things, you are not the authority on what is "engineering sense" and what isn't, nor are you an authority on what is "common sense" and what isn't. The game doesn't need to be hyper realistic to be fun and in my book it shouldn't be. Going by the lore of Trek itself, every ship in this game should have far more weapon slots than they actually do. The Scimitar as a prime example should have at least 42 weapon slots going by movie and behind the scenes specs. The Sovereign, Galaxy line, and many others should also have far far more than what they do now. Weapon slots and the like are limited to no more than 8 purely for gameplay purposes. If one omni were to be blocked by line of sight, it's not unreasonable to assume there would be other spots the weapons could fire from.
Far as gameplay purposes go I find the notion of keeping the omni beams restricted due to "engineering sense" as ridiculous as folks who argued against alternative methods to get the Kobali Samsar and other event ships when we first learned about Phoenix boxes years ago. Folks said "well I was there and I worked for it, they should've been there too" or my personal favorite "them having a new way to get the ship cheapens my achievement". Then there were folks like me who were there for the event who simply didn't care because that other person being able to get the Samsar through an alternate method had ZERO effect on me at all.
Likewise, folks being able to utilize all omni beams on their build has ZERO effect on you or your ability to play the game just like folks being able to utilize all turrets has zero effect on your ability to play the game. In fact you won't even know they're using all omni beams unless you run a combat log or they straight up tell you that's what they're doing. Also who is going to hold a phaser to your head and tell you that you have to use all omnis or use (choice of build here)? No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Arguing that folks shouldn't be allowed to have all omnis on their ship because "engineering sense" is no different than saying folks shouldn't be allowed to put Polaron on a Galaxy class because the Federation doesn't use polaron weapons. If you think using all omnis doesn't make engineering sense on a ship, then don't use all omni beams.
Well, this is an unusually cold response from yourself to a constructive argument. My arguments rail against making things even more easier than they already are, not against energy weapon types. It's a shame you can't see that.
His comments are wholly appropriate to your combative and condescending responses. You make a ton of assumptions, criticize anyone that disagrees for that same action and imply that your implementation is the only one with a 'modicum of common sense.'
Just to touch on your questionable 'point' though, engineering sense has nothing to do with anything. The Omni Beam itself is the weapon you slot into your ship. The 'in game' explanation is not necessarily that it's one beam firing in a circle.. an 'omni beam' could simply be an array with hardpoints at multiple points of the ship and the ship targeting re-directs the energy to the appropriate point based on the enemies position relative to the ship. The delay from re-routing power means that the beam isn't quite as powerful as a fixed beam but has the advantage of following the target.. there done. Now can you pipe down and let people build their ships the way they want? or does that also somehow ruin your personal game play experience?
Frankly, he was kind to you. It was a rather civil discussion until you decided to imply that only your way is the right way. The request is a game play request, the lore can be explained in whatever method needed. This is not an actual Star Trek show, it's a video game and this is a game play related request. We all thought that was obvious, but apparently, it's not.
There is a big difference between giving a constructive argument and critising folk for the hell of it. I make no assumptions beyond that which are blindly obvious, and I am ALWAYS civil about it.
Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
"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.
> @leemwatson said: > There is a big difference between giving a constructive argument and critising folk for the hell of it. I make no assumptions beyond that which are blindly obvious, and I am ALWAYS civil about it. > > Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
You literally take no notice whatsoever how other people play the game. It's not like they'd get some kind of competetive advantage using 8 omnis over people using 8 turrets. The amount of damage omnis cause over turrets won't break the fabric of space time.
I would however be in support to undo the nerf to turret firing cycles in the process.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
Then you don't understand the topic you are arguing against since there is nothing at all exploitative about the request, as covered earlier in the thread. Nothing proposed exploits the game or in any way effects your user experience.
I've always though that single cannons should be about the same damage and firing arc as single beams, maybe a bit more because they're cannons. Right now they're basically useless as weapons because they have such low damage and are limited to forward slots. Yet the Vaadwaur enemies have aft single cannons. I would also suggest moving their level 1 powers to ensign and lieutenant respectivly. That way someone could play early game with cannons and not be limited to beams and torps. It would be neat to broadside with cannons I think, a kind of 'Star Wars' feel which is a little humerous considering this is a Trek game. I do like the idea of removing the Omni restriction completly or limiting them to aft slots. I once did an all Fleet phaser turret build on a Galaxy-X but it wasn't very effective.
Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
Then you don't understand the topic you are arguing against since there is nothing at all exploitative about the request, as covered earlier in the thread. Nothing proposed exploits the game or in any way effects your user experience.
It's as simple as this; instead of 5 x 270 degree and 3 x 360 degree (KCB included), it'll be 8 x 360 degree, and Omni's do way more damage than turrets do, in the realms of 40-50% more damage (I'm pretty sure it's more, but I'm busy with something at the moment, and they don't do that much less than standard arrays, about 5-10% depending on the beam). The OP's suggestion would instantaneously relegate Turret builds as a competitive play-style (Sorry BSG builds).
It is also a balance issue (which has been brought up on Livestream before), on top of players exploiting it to be nothing more than AFK auto-fire Tower Defence. Yes, they can do they same with turrets, but their numbers won't be so great compared to Omni's. The fact still remains, it becomes another way to 'exploit', and, with respect, it does affect other's experience if someone is AFK'ing it away in TFO's, even if they are on auto-fire-macros, and no, I don't let it rule my life, I just dislike cheating/afk'ers.
Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I like to 'earn' my reward, however, when it comes to exploiting/cheating the system, Cryptic is too lax on it, and the game is already way too easy as it is. This is not a case of people not being able to cope with 5 arrays not being able to fire on the aft quarter to me. Without meaning to come across as condesending, this is how simple an understanding of this argument this is.
"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.
, on top of players exploiting it to be nothing more than AFK auto-fire Tower Defence. Yes, they can do they same with turrets, but their numbers won't be so great compared to Omni's. The fact still remains, it becomes another way to 'exploit', and, with respect, it does affect other's experience if someone is AFK'ing it away in TFO's, even if they are on auto-fire-macros, and no, I don't let it rule my life, I just dislike cheating/afk'ers.
So, you think AFKers will make the effort to get 8 omnis instead of just slapping on 8 beam arrays? And you want to hamper regular players' builds because of this possibility?
I strongly disagree, but you are entitled to think that of course.
It is also a balance issue (which has been brought up on Livestream before), on top of players exploiting it to be nothing more than AFK auto-fire Tower Defence. Yes, they can do they same with turrets, but their numbers won't be so great compared to Omni's. The fact still remains, it becomes another way to 'exploit', and, with respect, it does affect other's experience if someone is AFK'ing it away in TFO's, even if they are on auto-fire-macros, and no, I don't let it rule my life, I just dislike cheating/afk'ers.
The disconnect here comes from the fact that I don't see this as a valid argument. Players can (and do) already do this with single beams with their 250 degree firing arc. An 'Omni Boat' would just be a slightly lower damage version of what player can already do.
I believe you're greatly over estimating any benefit of 8 Omni's over say 8 Single Beams or 6 Singles and 2 Omni's. Players can already AFK easily with what we have now, and these players should not be a determining factor in holding back a change that would otherwise be a boon to the majority of the player base.
I understand what you're saying, I respectfully disagree on the impact.
If there was no advantage to it, I doubt very much that players would be so eager to have it.
There is an advantage, it allows 360 coverage of 8 weapons continuously with relatively little degradation of damage vs. regular beams.
If there is truly no advantage to it then everyone should be quite happy with beams and omnis as it is right?
I do however agree that it's a system that should be better shown somewhere in the game for everyone and could perhaps use a little bit of tweaking. They definitely need a wider variety of omnis I think...especially a non-lobi plasma one.
Comments
Yes, let's remove what little engineering sense there is about ships there is.
Sorry, but no. They shouldn't remove the limitation on Omnis. It just doesn't make engineering sense at all. In fact it's a bonkers suggestion. Even having 2 omnis (3 with KCB) is being generous. Most ships wouldn't be able to provide the '360' degree view for 2, nevermind 6 or more, as ship structures would obscure the line of sight.
Let's have some modicum of common sense folks.
What they should do is revamp weapon layouts to reflect actual arcs and numbers of weapons hardpoints on ships to reflect 'canon'. That way, you can have more weapons, with better coverage all around.
They should also reclassify torpedoes as 'Heavy Weapons' and remove them from the standard weapon slots.
These improvements would improve variability and choice for players rather than pidgeon-holeing builds.
OK, sure. /sarcasm.
Not that I disagree with the latter part mind you, you could be onto something there.
I agree that there should be simply "weapon slots" and the field of fire should be determined by the physical hardpoints, however STO is not the game for complex details like that. "fore" and "aft" weapon slots work well enough for the system as is.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The game is long past the point of turning torpedo's into experimental weapon style separate slots.
Breaking a large chunk of the player bases builds completely would not go over well in a game over a decade old.
Turrets are fine imo (dual cannons more than make up for the reduced damage), but I do agree that single cannons need a buff if there's any hope of them ever being competitive. Based on the numbers on the wiki the combined base damage of a single cannon + turret is lower than the combined base damage of 2 beam arrays, even though the cannon + turret isn't as easy to keep on target as beam arrays (though it's much easier than dual cannon + turret).
Increasing single cannon base damage at Mk XV by 89 DPS (and proportional increases to lower Mks) would put a cannon + turret right in the middle between 2 beam arrays and a dual cannon + turret which imo is where it probably should be for proper balance, but that would have the awkward side effect of making a single cannon deal more damage than a dual beam bank (I don't think that would be an actual problem, just a "that seems weird" kind of thing", actually addressing it would require a much broader rebalancing of energy weapon damage values and significantly more time from the devs).
I'm not saying experimental slots, I'm saying heavy weapons slots, and no, it wouldn't break the builds of a large chuck of player's builds, as there would be MORE slots for weapons. Two slots fore and aft for torps would not break anything. The Sovereign herself has 3 fore, 2 aft, not to mention 15 phaser arrays.
If Activision could do it in Starfleet Command 1, 2 AND 3, on a much simpler engine, and their games are way older, there's no excuse for Cryptic not to be able to do it on theirs, especially as they have weapons arcs already. They can remove them from the weapons themselves and assign them to the hardpoints, and we know this because the game ALREADY does it to decide which 'visual' hardpoint it's firing from.
What this is, is folk demanding the game become even more lazier, and easier than it already is. It also makes it even easier for the AFK-Auto-fire crowd to disguise what they are doing. Instead of an 8/3 Beam auto-firing ship, they now can have an 8/8 Beam auto-firing ship.
Seriously, how much more dumbing down of space combat do people actually want???
Oh trust me, I have my issues with the 'space-magic'.
Ok not everyone plays a sovereign or even a cruiser.
So your suggesting I slot energy weapons on a torpedo B'rel ? Or a mine laying T'varo ?
How would your suggestion look... on as an example a brel... we go from 4/2 to what 3 energy weapons 1 torp and 1 rear energy slot + a useless rear torpedo slot ?
Sure sure adding more free weapons to peoples cruisers would make them happy... but that is a very small part of the game.
Plenty of people playing science ships with zero energy weapons... or cruisers/sci/raider mine layers... or full on torpedo boats of all flavors.
What your suggesting would have made sense in year 1... in year 11 after multiple torpedo and mine tweaks... and traits (many of which cost people lots of real $) completely changing the mechanic would probably have them leaving.
I mentioned experimental slots... cause its the closest thing the game has to a "heavy" weapon slot. People are free to fly a ship with an EXP slot and slot things like the dual launcher ect if they want a non weapon slot torpedo.
I don't play Cruisers much, but I do play Sci ships, and I run with Beams and Torps cause that's what I've always done, and that's how MY build works. I don't care for the 'meta' of running all beams or all torps/mines. My suggestion puts ships to what they're supposed to be equipped with, after all, literally every ship in canon runs with energy weapons and some sort of torpedoes. And you know what, Cryptic can even put more torp slots on ships like the Nebula etc that are more suited for 'assault'. Torpedoes are heavy weapons and they should have they're own slots. The Experimental Slot used to be known as the Heavy Weapon slot, but they changed the name.
Your comment about it breaking a 'large chunk of the player base builds' is wholly disingenous.
Believe it or not... considering its a Trek game. Most people are actually playing a game... and not a Star trek manual simulator.
Yes taking away energy hard points to replace them with torpedo only hardpoints would break every players current build. Would everyone be upset... no the game does have a handful of RPers, still most would. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
No it's not disingenuous. You're presuming to speak for the player base and presuming knowledge you have absolutely no access to. That's what's disingenuous. Only Cryptic knows what the entire player-base is using. ADDING Torpedo hardpoints seperate and in addition to the current hardpoints would BENEFIT most players, especially Beam only builds, and it certainly would not break my build, it would strengthen it.
If Cryptic wants to 'evolve' the game further, giving more 'canon' hardpoints and weapon slots on ships is a vastly better suggestion than slapping 8 Omnis on to a ship to satisfy folk who just want to be even lazier.
If they had done it in the beginning, then it would be fine, hell I'd even prefer it. But a drastic change like that 12 years after release would only TRIBBLE people off.
Angrytarg has it right, phasers (and presumably but not necessarily other energy weapons in the show) are not monolithic standalone weapons like one of today's shell-firing naval guns. Where an emitter is placed does determine what arc that particular emitter can fire in, but a particular shipboard phaser can have multiple emitters looking out into different arcs.
In fact, when TMP came out and the fans were not happy about the ship bristling with phasers the official word from Paramount about those matching ball turrets on the top and bottom of the 2270s Enterprise saucer was that each vertical pair were ONE phaser with two emitters, the arrangement was there to widen the arc and not to have more guns. The main part of the phasers were buried inside the hull in rooms adjacent to one of the phaser control rooms just like the one on deck 5 shown in Balance of Terror.
Photon torpedo launcher placements, if taken too literally, are another problem for a game spanning as much time as STO does since the systems were so different from each other in the shows. The TOS Enterprise had at least six forward tubes according to dialog, and had an unspecified number of aft tubes (behind the scenes information pins it down as six forward, four rear because Roddenberry and Jefferies decided to use the most common WWII USN submarine arrangement of the tubes). Those tubes would then be outclassed in the 2270s by only two Mk VI tubes forward and one MK VI aft.
Getting into such nitpicking detail would just overcomplicate the game so they take more of a 'what they do' than a 'how they are they placed" tack on the subject. It does cause some problems like the omnibeam issue, but overall it is a reasonable compromise, though they really should ditch the undocumented nonsense and put it as ANY TWO omnis so people can run two sets without having to resort to silly kludges like taking the turret for one of them if the choice is even available instead of just an omnibeam to complete the set (like the Martok set) and the KCB or simply any three omnibeams.
Or at the very least put some kind of explicit identifier printed on the tooltip for the things (like 'A' and 'B') and simply say you can only have one 'A' emplacement omnibeam and one 'B' emplacement omnibeam on a ship or whatever (though that still has the nasty set problem unless the devs update all sets containing omnibeams to also include turrets).
A couple of things, you are not the authority on what is "engineering sense" and what isn't, nor are you an authority on what is "common sense" and what isn't. The game doesn't need to be hyper realistic to be fun and in my book it shouldn't be. Going by the lore of Trek itself, every ship in this game should have far more weapon slots than they actually do. The Scimitar as a prime example should have at least 42 weapon slots going by movie and behind the scenes specs. The Sovereign, Galaxy line, and many others should also have far far more than what they do now. Weapon slots and the like are limited to no more than 8 purely for gameplay purposes. If one omni were to be blocked by line of sight, it's not unreasonable to assume there would be other spots the weapons could fire from.
Far as gameplay purposes go I find the notion of keeping the omni beams restricted due to "engineering sense" as ridiculous as folks who argued against alternative methods to get the Kobali Samsar and other event ships when we first learned about Phoenix boxes years ago. Folks said "well I was there and I worked for it, they should've been there too" or my personal favorite "them having a new way to get the ship cheapens my achievement". Then there were folks like me who were there for the event who simply didn't care because that other person being able to get the Samsar through an alternate method had ZERO effect on me at all.
Likewise, folks being able to utilize all omni beams on their build has ZERO effect on you or your ability to play the game just like folks being able to utilize all turrets has zero effect on your ability to play the game. In fact you won't even know they're using all omni beams unless you run a combat log or they straight up tell you that's what they're doing. Also who is going to hold a phaser to your head and tell you that you have to use all omnis or use (choice of build here)? No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Arguing that folks shouldn't be allowed to have all omnis on their ship because "engineering sense" is no different than saying folks shouldn't be allowed to put Polaron on a Galaxy class because the Federation doesn't use polaron weapons. If you think using all omnis doesn't make engineering sense on a ship, then don't use all omni beams.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Well, this is an unusually cold response from yourself to a constructive argument. My arguments rail against making things even more easier than they already are, not against energy weapon types. It's a shame you can't see that.
His comments are wholly appropriate to your combative and condescending responses. You make a ton of assumptions, criticize anyone that disagrees for that same action and imply that your implementation is the only one with a 'modicum of common sense.'
Just to touch on your questionable 'point' though, engineering sense has nothing to do with anything. The Omni Beam itself is the weapon you slot into your ship. The 'in game' explanation is not necessarily that it's one beam firing in a circle.. an 'omni beam' could simply be an array with hardpoints at multiple points of the ship and the ship targeting re-directs the energy to the appropriate point based on the enemies position relative to the ship. The delay from re-routing power means that the beam isn't quite as powerful as a fixed beam but has the advantage of following the target.. there done. Now can you pipe down and let people build their ships the way they want? or does that also somehow ruin your personal game play experience?
Frankly, he was kind to you. It was a rather civil discussion until you decided to imply that only your way is the right way. The request is a game play request, the lore can be explained in whatever method needed. This is not an actual Star Trek show, it's a video game and this is a game play related request. We all thought that was obvious, but apparently, it's not.
I think the problem is that people don't always know that rule. I know it because of sites like this, but how would anyone that just plays the game and doesn't visit this site or reddit know that you can only equip one set and one crafted?
I am not aware of anywhere in game where that information is given.
> I think the problem is that people don't always know that rule. I know it because of sites like this, but how would anyone that just plays the game and doesn't visit this site or reddit know that you can only equip one set and one crafted?
>
> I am not aware of anywhere in game where that information is given.
The rule, like a bunch of other game mechanics, is not documented anywhere in the game. Only on third party sites. STO explains basically nothing aside from how to move your character and where to find one of the gazillion submenus for any of the reputations, doffs, armadas etc. - but how all of those things really work is only found out if you look it up on the internet.
Example: By playing the game you gave no idea what cat1-3 buffs are and which stats are actually altered by slotting a console.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The basics of shipbuilding are easy, big numbers better (mostly) but Cryptic follow the pattern of "we'll let the players figure it out" and then we end up with situations like what happened with this very bundles account wide trait, fortunately the more vocal players got it changed (plus there was a financial incentive on Cryptic's side).
A lot of games follow that pattern of introducing mechanics that get hidden away for higher end players to find. If I was less jaded than I am, I'd say it was on purpose to build communities faster.
There is a big difference between giving a constructive argument and critising folk for the hell of it. I make no assumptions beyond that which are blindly obvious, and I am ALWAYS civil about it.
Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
> There is a big difference between giving a constructive argument and critising folk for the hell of it. I make no assumptions beyond that which are blindly obvious, and I am ALWAYS civil about it.
>
> Again, this about not making the game even easier and lazier for people to exploit. I care for the experience of gaming, not for finding ways to denegrate or exploit it.
You literally take no notice whatsoever how other people play the game. It's not like they'd get some kind of competetive advantage using 8 omnis over people using 8 turrets. The amount of damage omnis cause over turrets won't break the fabric of space time.
I would however be in support to undo the nerf to turret firing cycles in the process.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Then you don't understand the topic you are arguing against since there is nothing at all exploitative about the request, as covered earlier in the thread. Nothing proposed exploits the game or in any way effects your user experience.
It's as simple as this; instead of 5 x 270 degree and 3 x 360 degree (KCB included), it'll be 8 x 360 degree, and Omni's do way more damage than turrets do, in the realms of 40-50% more damage (I'm pretty sure it's more, but I'm busy with something at the moment, and they don't do that much less than standard arrays, about 5-10% depending on the beam). The OP's suggestion would instantaneously relegate Turret builds as a competitive play-style (Sorry BSG builds).
It is also a balance issue (which has been brought up on Livestream before), on top of players exploiting it to be nothing more than AFK auto-fire Tower Defence. Yes, they can do they same with turrets, but their numbers won't be so great compared to Omni's. The fact still remains, it becomes another way to 'exploit', and, with respect, it does affect other's experience if someone is AFK'ing it away in TFO's, even if they are on auto-fire-macros, and no, I don't let it rule my life, I just dislike cheating/afk'ers.
Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I like to 'earn' my reward, however, when it comes to exploiting/cheating the system, Cryptic is too lax on it, and the game is already way too easy as it is. This is not a case of people not being able to cope with 5 arrays not being able to fire on the aft quarter to me. Without meaning to come across as condesending, this is how simple an understanding of this argument this is.
So, you think AFKers will make the effort to get 8 omnis instead of just slapping on 8 beam arrays? And you want to hamper regular players' builds because of this possibility?
I strongly disagree, but you are entitled to think that of course.
The disconnect here comes from the fact that I don't see this as a valid argument. Players can (and do) already do this with single beams with their 250 degree firing arc. An 'Omni Boat' would just be a slightly lower damage version of what player can already do.
I believe you're greatly over estimating any benefit of 8 Omni's over say 8 Single Beams or 6 Singles and 2 Omni's. Players can already AFK easily with what we have now, and these players should not be a determining factor in holding back a change that would otherwise be a boon to the majority of the player base.
I understand what you're saying, I respectfully disagree on the impact.
There is an advantage, it allows 360 coverage of 8 weapons continuously with relatively little degradation of damage vs. regular beams.
If there is truly no advantage to it then everyone should be quite happy with beams and omnis as it is right?
I do however agree that it's a system that should be better shown somewhere in the game for everyone and could perhaps use a little bit of tweaking. They definitely need a wider variety of omnis I think...especially a non-lobi plasma one.