The 3% your seeing on the omni... is simply the omni having a [arc] mod. One DMG mod is all they give up for 110 degrees of extra firing arc.
If we unlock them it won't be people loading their ships with 8 different set omnis. People will use 6 or 7 crafted omnis. Trading ONE damage mod for a [arc] mod.
Turrets get a built in reduction in damage. Omni beams do not. A few set omnis have lower numbers for whatever reasoning cryptic used at the time they released them. The standard omni beam though is forced to have a [arc] mod that is the only real difference in terms of dmg. It is also why no one really uses the one Wide arc Dual cannon they are allowed to run... cause the one dmg mode for 45 degrees more arc isn't really worthwhile.
I mean if everyone really wants to use full omni setups... Maybe the thing that makes more sense is to just add a [ARC] mod into the reroll table for all weapons.
Add [arc] as an option every weapon can have one of. Have it add 70 degrees to single cannons (Giving them single beam arc) Have it give 110 degrees to single arrays making them omnis. Make it give 45 degrees to dual and dual heavies making them wide angle versions. 90 Degrees to DBB giving them single cannon arc. At least there would be some minor trade in damage. (I'm not actually seriously suggesting such a thing... I think the game is fine as it is. 2 omni beams per ship is a logical limit imo)
Why are there no calls to restrict turrets the same way as omnis? Personally I wouldn't care if they nerfed the crafted omnis to be in line with the set omnis or similar if I could use 8 of them.
Turrets do a fraction of the damage of even single cannons...the main reason to use turrets is because you're using csv/crf, it's more efficient than omnis and cost slightly less power to fire
For example, according to Gene Coon, who was the one who actually invented the Federation (up until then Roddenberry just used the term "the interstellar community"), it was based on the UN but a little tighter knit, somewhat similar to the very early US system with strong states and a relatively weak central government, which is why they used ambassadors instead of senators and whatnot)
Starfleet and the Federation as a whole wouldn't be fleshed out until the movies and later TNG.
And there's STILL the myth that every starship in TOS had unique assignment patches despite the existence of a document declaring that Starfleet personnel wore the same arrowhead as the Enterprise crew. In a way this was mitigated by the existence of Discovery showing that everyone used the arrowhead before TOS, but then we have outliers like the Mirror Universe episodes of Enterprise, which had a different badge for the Defiant uniforms. Even STO has made up badges for TOS era Starships. The only time we really have absolute confirmed assignment patches is in Enterprise.
By the end of the first TOS season Starfleet and the Federation were pretty solidly fleshed out behind the scenes but not all of it made it into the episodes even by the end of TOS (or TAS for that matter) because of Roddenberry's strict show-not-tell policy for the show at that time meant all reveals like that had to be in context of an episode's story and could not take precedence over dialog and whatnot that worked towards the resolution of that story.
That last was also the reason that mention of Sulu being a Starfleet Intelligence agent was cut. The episode where he returned ran over the allowable time even without that background element reveal and it was cut along with whatever else they could trim to bring the runtime within limits, and Roddenberry decided that putting it in the next episode to be made was not appropriate enough without the factor of Sulu returning in it.
Had there been the time though, the short dialog exchange would have revealed that SI maintained a low-key but open presence on most Starfleet ships and when SI missions came up they temporarily detached agents (like Sulu) from the nearest ships to handle them. Admittedly, it was not exactly earthshaking, but it was good enough for an initial glimpse at SI.
Later on, Berman's influence drove the various spinoff series in the opposite direction and unlike TOS they had many technobabble interludes where they would talk about things in far more detail than strictly needed for the plot.
Anyway, the differences between TOS and the various spinoffs was easy enough to attribute to those organizations evolving over time until ENT where the Paramount executives wanted all of the TNG era stuff with just the date changed rather than making an actual "historical" Trek setting. Unfortunately, that "all eras are the same" nonsense is still popular in Hollywood, though SNW is making at least some headway in trying to make it look and feel more TOS-like.
As for the omnibeam stuff, suggestions of nerfing the omnis to turret levels to remove all the limitations would not go over so well. DBBs are not as powerful as the cannon clusters so a beamscort or whatever needs the extra damage the omni's do to not be at a significant disadvantage compared to cannon armed ships.
The only limitation they really need to remove is the nitpicky one-and-one nonsense; allowing any two omnis has proven not to disturb the balance, is not confusing, and for the majority of cases eliminates the need to mix omnis and turrets to run two sets to a reasonable degree.
Following this same train of thought, why not allow cannons to be mounted in the rear?
Wouldn't bother me if they were. Chief reasons they're not is you never see it in Trek, at least not like that. The big difference in this instance is precedent already exists to have turrets in all 8 slots thus setting the stage for 8 omnis. Simply having a weapon on a ship doesn't mean anything if a person doesn't know how to build or pilot their ship.
Think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
The reason is simple. I have explained it. Omni beams have no different base damage from a single array. Being forced to run one [arc] mod is not on its own sufficient payment for a 360 degree firing arc. Which is why they are rightly limited to two per ship. Sure switching [arc] to [dmg] nets you 3% dmg... but lets all be real now. 110 degrees more of arc is >>> then 3%.
I stand by what I said first. If Omnis were to be unlocked. Then they ALL do 34% too much damage. Nerf Omni damage 34% and allow people to slot as many of them as they like. I would be ok with that. It would put them on par with Turrets.
As they are essentially just single arrays that have a [arc] mod... yes they are TOO good. A limit of two keeps them from being game breaking. (Cryptic agrees... as I assume this is the main reason most Set omnis actually are set with lower base damage)
It doesn't happen often that a post legitimately leaves me scratching my head wondering how someone can be so confident yet so far off at the same time. In what universe is the 1571 of that omni beam I mentioned greater than the 1618 of the beam array because it sure isn't this one. If both are firing and both hitting the target, that omni will never outdo that beam array in terms of pure raw damage. The only way an omni will ever outdo a beam array is if the beam array isn't firing.
Now I have to ask where on earth are you getting this 34% number? As I said I'm not opposed to bringing crafted omnis in line with other omnis that are already lower damage. They don't need to be doing the exact same as turrets. Only problems I'm seeing by the power argument are crafted ones. So nerf them and put them in line with others mentioned. Otherwise having extra targeting arc is NOT a damage increase, but simply allowing the weapon to fire. It's still doing less damage per shot than the beam array.
Lastly for this part, I'm sorry but I don't buy the power creep argument as that ship sailed LONG ago. When you have sci builds that can literally lag the entire server if enough of them are in the same place as has happened in the past, yeah no. 8 omnis is NOTHING compared to that. To suggest otherwise is just spin in my book. I don't care if folks disagree on whether omnis should be restricted still or not, but at least be consistent with your standards. Otherwise when folks aren't consistent it makes it very hard for me to take them serious.
Turrets do a fraction of the damage of even single cannons...the main reason to use turrets is because you're using csv/crf, it's more efficient than omnis and cost slightly less power to fire
See above, I do not accept this argument as valid as I find the power creep arguments to be spin in this case. Also I am not opposed to crafted omnis being nerfed in line with other omnis since it's really crafted that are the problem. If's ridiculous to suggest it's fine to slot 8 turrets with no issues but not 8 omnis. If slotting 8 360 degree weapons was as potent as people are making it out to be in here, then turret builds would be everywhere and they're not.
"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
only way i would be behind lifting the restrictions would be to reduce the DPS of the omnis, at least by a quarter, probably even a third less than beam arrays
People comparing damage numbers between beams and omnis act, like dual beam banks are not a thing. Also seems some argument are there just for the arguments sake.
Again: lock omnis to rear weapon slot, lift other restrictions. Problem solved.
P.S. as stated: dual beam banks are indeed a thing.
See above, I do not accept this argument as valid as I find the power creep arguments to be spin in this case. Also I am not opposed to crafted omnis being nerfed in line with other omnis since it's really crafted that are the problem. If's ridiculous to suggest it's fine to slot 8 turrets with no issues but not 8 omnis. If slotting 8 360 degree weapons was as potent as people are making it out to be in here, then turret builds would be everywhere and they're not.
Just for fun I put together a turret build on my mains Miracle Worker Flight Deck Carrier. It's a 5/3 with one Kelvin Photon Torpedo fore and one aft. The remaining 6 slots are turrets.
It did better than expected. Bear in mind, though, that nearly all of my gear is of Epic quality. I was impressed enough to commit the build to a Loadout slot.
It won't win me any DPS prizes, but it comes in handy since cannon weapon types fare better against those pesky Iconian probes than beams in my experience. It's also a little fun to play with such a loadout.
It doesn't happen often that a post legitimately leaves me scratching my head wondering how someone can be so confident yet so far off at the same time. In what universe is the 1571 of that omni beam I mentioned greater than the 1618 of the beam array because it sure isn't this one. If both are firing and both hitting the target, that omni will never outdo that beam array in terms of pure raw damage. The only way an omni will ever outdo a beam array is if the beam array isn't firing.
Now I have to ask where on earth are you getting this 34% number? As I said I'm not opposed to bringing crafted omnis in line with other omnis that are already lower damage. They don't need to be doing the exact same as turrets. Only problems I'm seeing by the power argument are crafted ones. So nerf them and put them in line with others mentioned. Otherwise having extra targeting arc is NOT a damage increase, but simply allowing the weapon to fire. It's still doing less damage per shot than the beam array.
Lastly for this part, I'm sorry but I don't buy the power creep argument as that ship sailed LONG ago. When you have sci builds that can literally lag the entire server if enough of them are in the same place as has happened in the past, yeah no. 8 omnis is NOTHING compared to that. To suggest otherwise is just spin in my book. I don't care if folks disagree on whether omnis should be restricted still or not, but at least be consistent with your standards. Otherwise when folks aren't consistent it makes it very hard for me to take them serious.
1618 to 1571 is a 3% damage difference. You are comparing a single array with 5 damage mods, against an Omni which can ONLY have 4. As one is dedicated to the [arc] mod. Omnis have a ARC mod and get 110 degrees more arc. That is the only difference. Their damage is identical. If you roll a single array with 4 damage modes instead of 5.... it will also do 1571. THEY are identical. This isn't hard to grok.
The 34% number comes from Turrets. A turret does 34% less base damage then a single cannon. That is what turrets get for 180 degrees of extra arc.
As for power creep arguments. Yes game developers should at least consider it a little bit. Having said that the main issue for Cryptic is it makes LAZY builds more common. The Jelly ship is bad enough. All the complaining about sci spam is still silly... end of the day DEW builds still do more DPS. Upgrading DEW builds isn't required.
IF as you suggest they unlock omnis. Single arrays become as obsolete as single cannons.
1618 to 1571 is a 3% damage difference. You are comparing a single array with 5 damage mods, against an Omni which can ONLY have 4. As one is dedicated to the [arc] mod. Omnis have a ARC mod and get 110 degrees more arc. That is the only difference. Their damage is identical. If you roll a single array with 4 damage modes instead of 5.... it will also do 1571. THEY are identical. This isn't hard to grok.
The 34% number comes from Turrets. A turret does 34% less base damage then a single cannon. That is what turrets get for 180 degrees of extra arc.
As for power creep arguments. Yes game developers should at least consider it a little bit. Having said that the main issue for Cryptic is it makes LAZY builds more common. The Jelly ship is bad enough. All the complaining about sci spam is still silly... end of the day DEW builds still do more DPS. Upgrading DEW builds isn't required.
IF as you suggest they unlock omnis. Single arrays become as obsolete as single cannons.
The math is what the math is regardless of whether you and I like it or not. We can debate whether or not it's purely because of the extra dmg mod or otherwise but regardless again 1618 =/= 1571. The crafted omni deals less damage than a beam array. Again [arc] is not a damage increase.
I will say I'm glad you've specified where you got the 34% number from. Simultaneously I highlighted some relevant sections in bold because I find these sections extremely telling to the true motivations of the argument.
First the goal was to have crafted omnis be in line with set omnis, now the goal has moved to make them in line with turrets. Crafted omnis are the outlier and the precedent of omnis doing 15%-20% less than beam arrays is already established. Crafted omnis do not need to be nerfed further beyond that. You can't say that there's a difference between turrets and omnis one moment then turn around and demand they be treated the same. Either they're different weapon types or they're not. I find it rather telling as well that dual banks have been left completely out of the beams discussion here. Why is their damage not being mentioned? Why are folks not arguing for beam arrays to catch a buff if the concern is them being left in the dust?
Even then dude far as the second portion in bold, I'm sorry but no, just no. As I asked before, so long as the person in the group is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, what business is it of yours or anyone else what a person has on their ship? How is them having a so called "lazy build" hurting you or anyone else? The answer is of course it's not hurting you and it's really none of your business. I'm sorry but citing the "lazy build" argument just stinks of "that person doesn't play like me and I don't like it so they shouldn't be allowed to do it." Like no you don't get to dictate that to other people.
Lastly if you're going cite power creep arguments be consistent with your standards. If you're going to argue unlocking omnis would be too strong, why are you not arguing for restrictions on turrets and nerfs for science? It goes both ways. You say that unlocking omnis would make beam arrays obsolete yet there are two things, we're only talking crafted omnis being an issue per previous and we've dealt with that. Second is that people are not going to leave all those set bonuses or other items like Terran Task Force Beam on the table, they just won't. If everyone operated the way you say, we would see all turret builds everywhere, but we don't. You might see a number of folks use 8 omnis briefly but that's it. once the novelty wears off you won't see it as much if ever just like many other flavor of the month setups.
"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
1618 may not be equal to 1571, but if I can get that 1570 consistently from eight different arrays simultaneously on the same target, that's definitely superior to 1618 from usually four of them. Let me slot all the omnis I want, and there's no reason for me not to slap eight of them on a cruiser and then pretty much just sit there, save minor maneuvering, because everything is in my firing arc.
Just to have the complete picture of beams and expand on a point I made in my previous post, I went back into the game and compared the previous polaron omni beam at 1571 to a standard polaron dual bank also with dmgx4 and crtd/dmg mod. The polaron dual bank was sitting at 2103. When you do the math, that crafted omni is doing 25% less damage than a dual bank. Now if I compare that same dual bank to my inhibited polaron omni with dmgx3 and crtd/dmg the inhibited omni sits at 1408 with the inhibited omni doing 33% less damage than the dual bank. When we compare beams to beams and cannons to cannons, the percentages are the same. Should crafted omnis be nerfed they do not need to be nerfed to the same damage as a turret, they only need to match the set omnis. In terms of function, the only things that are the same about an omni beam and a turret is they both have a 360 degree arc. Beyond that they are radically different weapons. So for those wanting similar percentages to turrets, you already have your wish.
Once again crafted omnis would be the outlier and the exception to the rule. I still stand by what I said previously. If one wishes to put 8 crafted omnis on their ship, they should be allowed to do so. You will lose out massively on damage overall by not picking up set bonuses that would've further enhanced your ability, or ignoring other weapons that could hit even harder than that. Having the ability to put 8 omnis on a ship on its own should not be making or breaking you, and if it is then you have much bigger problems to worry about. 8 omnis would be a novelty just like having an all turrets build. You might see them briefly because it's something new, but they too will ultimately fade back into obscurity like every other flavor of the month once the novelty wears off. Replaced by whatever is considered "meta".
"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
I don't mind being limited to 2 omnis but it should be ANY 2 omnis.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Just to have the complete picture of beams and expand on a point I made in my previous post, I went back into the game and compared the previous polaron omni beam at 1571 to a standard polaron dual bank also with dmgx4 and crtd/dmg mod. The polaron dual bank was sitting at 2103. When you do the math, that crafted omni is doing 25% less damage than a dual bank. Now if I compare that same dual bank to my inhibited polaron omni with dmgx3 and crtd/dmg the inhibited omni sits at 1408 with the inhibited omni doing 33% less damage than the dual bank. When we compare beams to beams and cannons to cannons, the percentages are the same. Should crafted omnis be nerfed they do not need to be nerfed to the same damage as a turret, they only need to match the set omnis. In terms of function, the only things that are the same about an omni beam and a turret is they both have a 360 degree arc. Beyond that they are radically different weapons. So for those wanting similar percentages to turrets, you already have your wish.
Once again crafted omnis would be the outlier and the exception to the rule. I still stand by what I said previously. If one wishes to put 8 crafted omnis on their ship, they should be allowed to do so. You will lose out massively on damage overall by not picking up set bonuses that would've further enhanced your ability, or ignoring other weapons that could hit even harder than that. Having the ability to put 8 omnis on a ship on its own should not be making or breaking you, and if it is then you have much bigger problems to worry about. 8 omnis would be a novelty just like having an all turrets build. You might see them briefly because it's something new, but they too will ultimately fade back into obscurity like every other flavor of the month once the novelty wears off. Replaced by whatever is considered "meta".
Why are you comparing them to DUAL beam banks? Dual beam banks do more damage yes they have 90 degree firing arcs not 250 or 360. That has always been the games design.... smaller firing arc more damage. This is why Dual heavy cannons do more damage they have 45 degree arcs. The game is designed that way to reward good piloting with more damage.
You seem to be not considering much in terms of crafted omnis. Crafted omnis are the normal omni. Set pieces damage numbers very depending on which ever arbitrary number Cryptics devs choose. That was them balancing sets... its not just omnis any set with a weapon they, figure out what they feel the base damage should be. If omnis are unlocked... People aren't going to load 8 different set omnis and rainbow. They are going to load 7-8 non set omni arrays.
And no matter what you want to argue about 3% differences in damage... facts are facts. Omni arrays have the same base damage as a single array. That is just a fact. Yes you can have one more damage mod on a single array. So what. No one can honestly argue that a 3% base damage [dmg] mod is = to a [arc] mod. If we could re roll one [arc] onto every weapon everyone would.
You seem to be not considering much in terms of crafted omnis. Crafted omnis are the normal omni. Set pieces damage numbers very depending on which ever arbitrary number Cryptics devs choose. That was them balancing sets... its not just omnis any set with a weapon they, figure out what they feel the base damage should be. If omnis are unlocked... People aren't going to load 8 different set omnis and rainbow. They are going to load 7-8 non set omni arrays.
Addressing these in a particular order for a reason. But with that said let's get started.
So first up, you sit here and say it's them balancing the sets by them giving set omnis a lower damage value. Regardless of what that damage value is the set omnis will fall within a 15%-25% on average LESS damage than a standard beam array, and even less than a dual bank as the non-360 weapons of the beam world. Crafted omni beams are the exception to this rule being that they do not fall into that 15%-25% range. When you have all the omnis doing one thing, but only crafted omnis doing another, do you not understand that crafted omnis are the EXCEPTION to the rule and are not the default standard? If you want to say they're "normal" in the sense that they're just basic 360 degree beams, that's valid. But to suggest they are normal in terms of the math they're absolutely not. Once again if the concern is crafted omnis being too strong should omnis ever be unlocked, then as I said prior, nerf crafted omnis to fall within that same 15%-25% less damage range that all other omnis in the game fall into. More on section in italics shortly.
And no matter what you want to argue about 3% differences in damage... facts are facts. Omni arrays have the same base damage as a single array. That is just a fact. Yes you can have one more damage mod on a single array. So what. No one can honestly argue that a 3% base damage [dmg] mod is = to a [arc] mod.If we could re roll one [arc] onto every weapon everyone would.
In bolded section you say none can argue that the dmg mod is equal to arc mod in this instance, yet you've done exactly that previously by trying to argue that having the arc mod equates to extra damage because of the 110 degrees extra field of fire. Yet that's not how damage works. If the beam array and omni beam are firing and hitting the target, that omni beam will NEVER outdamage that beam array, period. 1618 will always be greater than 1571. Likewise that beam array of 1618 will always be greater in damage than that inhibited polaron omni at 1408. The only time an omni beam will ever outdo the beam array is if the beam array is not firing. In which case that's not the fault of the beam array but the pilot of the ship. Note once again section in italics which we're getting ready to deal with.
Why are you comparing them to DUAL beam banks? Dual beam banks do more damage yes they have 90 degree firing arcs not 250 or 360. That has always been the games design.... smaller firing arc more damage. This is why Dual heavy cannons do more damage they have 45 degree arcs. The game is designed that way to reward good piloting with more damage.
I answered this part last because it gets into a point that needs to be made. As it sits right now with cannons in terms of damage from least to greatest you have: turret --> single cannon --> dual cannons --> dual heavy cannons. Now with the world of beams from least to greatest you have: omni beam --> beam array --> dual banks.
As it sits right now, a turret will do around 34% less damage than a single cannon and even less than dual heavies.
When we look at beams as it sits right now all set omnis fall within 15%-25% less damage than a beam array and ballpark 33% less than dual banks. Crafted omnis are around 3% less than a beam array and around 25% (25.3 exact) less than a dual bank. Crafted omnis are the only type of omni to scale this way thus are the outlier. So again what is the solution? The answer is to bring them in line with other omni types and nerf them to fall within that 15%-25% range set omnis do and 33% less than dual banks.
To answer the question of why I brought up dual banks, you previously said omnis needed to be nerfed by 34% to bring them in line with turrets. I'm assuming in this instance you meant crafted omnis and not purely every existing omni. However you can correct me on that if you did in fact mean every omni. Now with that in mind I brought up dual banks to complete the picture of where beams are at currently. You do not need to have crafted omnis be in line with turrets because a beam is not cannon. The percentages in the beam realm are similar to those in the cannon realm already. So if you want omnis to scale to beam arrays and dual banks similar to turrets vs single cannons and dual/dual heavy cannons, you already have your wish with the exception currently of crafted omni beams.
If your concern is balance, you cannot balance crafted omnis based on what turrets are doing as it's not the same weapon type at all. Instead you would have to balance based on their damage vs beam arrays and dual banks. Also again I find it telling I see no calls for people to nerf science or similar, yet want to cite power creep here. As I said I tend to not take arguments like that seriously because it's a double standard suggesting folks only want build flavors they don't like to get nerfed.
Now for the sections in italics. We've debated the math of the weapons themselves however I see you continue to cling to the section in bold about "if we allow this then everyone will do it" kind of thing. Again I will ask, so what if a bunch of people decide to run 8 crafted omnis and run a so called "lazy build" as you named it? Who is being hurt by that? In that hypothetical scenario if they're pulling their own weight in content and you're clearing content then what is the issue? Because I'm going to be frank here dude, those arguments just stink of "I don't like that kind of build so no one else should be allowed to run it in my game" type of logic. Long as they're pulling their weight and content is being cleared, again what business is it of yours what they choose to run on their ship or what they don't? The answer of course is it's none of your business whether it's a so called "lazy build" or not.
Lastly you claim people would just run 8 crafted omnis and would never mix and match. Who is saying they have to make rainbow builds? Because nowhere did I ever say that's what people had to do. What I HAVE however said is if they do that they're going to be leaving a ton of bonuses and further damage increases on the table. For disruptors let's take the Terran Task Force Disruptor as well as Discovery bonuses with Lorka's console and similar into account. Long as that Terran Task Force Disruptor is on target, it's one of the hardest if not the hardest hitting beams in game. For the Lorka Set, by forgoing the Dark Matter Torpedo and the console (2 most commonly used pieces of the set) you're leaving up to 25% critical severity on the table from the 2 set, along with the 3% crit chance and 120 shield pen from the console itself. So by running 8 crafted omnis you're making your crits 3% less likely to happen, 25% weaker when they do, making it harder to get through enemy shields, using 2 inferior weapons when you could have two of the hardest hitting weapons in game on the ship to take advantage of other traits and abilities, all for the novelty of some crafted omnis. Overall mathematically you will be doing LESS damage if you did that which runs counter to the goal of bumping up your DPS. Now this is just the stuff I thought of off the top of my head for disruptor. I could list more stuff if you like, but you seriously overestimate the crafted omnis here. Would some people run 8 of them for awhile purely because they could, sure. But that would only last until the novelty and newness of it wore off like every other flavor of the month until folks go back to whatever is "meta" at the time. I've seen it too many times in other mmos as well as here.
"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
Arc = Damage. If you don't understand that you are a bad pilot. I don't care how good a pilot you are, not having to pilot at all is worth a lot more then 3%. Which is why omnis are limited to 2 per ship.
I didn't make the game take it up with Cryptic they agree with my take.
Your also incorrect on your take on beams. Currently its Omin=Single Array < Dual Beams. Single arrays and omnis are identical. Your argument is based on mods.
I could say [pen] weapons do less damage weapons with all [dmg] mods. This would be true... yet the pen weapons are superior as the [pen] mod is superior to a damage mod. [arc] is superior to a damage mod.
Arc = Damage. If you don't understand that you are a bad pilot. I don't care how good a pilot you are, not having to pilot at all is worth a lot more then 3%. Which is why omnis are limited to 2 per ship.
That's not how that works dude or everyone running 8 turrets would always be topping the charts. arc simply equates to extra field of fire. If you have a beam array and an omni a ship and both are firing and hitting their targets then in no universe will that omni outdo that beam array ever. The only time an omni ever outdoes a beam array is if the beam array isn't firing in which case even a mk i ground weapon can outdo that beam array. So are we going to say that mk i ground weapons are better than ship mounted beam arrays now? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous argument dude.
I didn't make the game take it up with Cryptic they agree with my take.
That's not how that works either. Unless you want to assume the hardpoint thing I was told years ago is still accurate, we do not know 100% for sure why they're still limited. You can assume because of power creep and I would even venture that could be part of a safe bet. However until one of them outright says "this is why omni restrictions still exist" neither you or I either one know for sure.
Your also incorrect on your take on beams. Currently its Omin=Single Array < Dual Beams. Single arrays and omnis are identical. Your argument is based on mods.
I could say [pen] weapons do less damage weapons with all [dmg] mods. This would be true... yet the pen weapons are superior as the [pen] mod is superior to a damage mod. [arc] is superior to a damage mod.
Read what I said again slower as you are objectively wrong about what I've said. My argument has been based on the baseline damage of the omnis themselves and the only time I ever mentioned mods present on the weapons was to demonstrate 2 things, the baseline for my comparisons so someone doesn't say "now run that comparison again with an all dmg setup instead of ACCx4" or some similar argument, and also acknowledging the fact that omnis get one less dmg mod than a beam array be they crafted or set omni.
My argument has been based on the baseline damage of the omnis themselves and has nothing to do with mods beyond what was stated above. One only needs to examine each omni beam to get a read on what its baseline damage is then compare to a beam array. Every non-crafted omni is 15%-25% less base damage than a beam array straight out of the gate. Only crafted omnis are the exception to this rule in that they are 3% less than the beam arrays. So once again if I were going to change something as a developer, the thing I would change is nerfing CRAFTED omni beams only since they are the problem. All the other omni beams are fine. Do you not grasp that omni beams tied to sets are different from omni beams produced from the crafting system? If you can't or won't draw that distinction then there is no point in even trying to debate because it would be in bad faith.
As for your argument about Pen, that entire section is wholly irrelevant and even then is not the same as an arc mod. Pen by its nature is still granting an increase in damage, however instead of directly boosting the weapon its attached to itself, it allows you to bypass some of the foes armor leading to increased damage. Arc never does this. Arc simply grants additional field of fire to what is already there. That's it.
Lastly you've still failed to answer my other questions so I will ask them a final time. I find your outright refusal to answer them rather telling of hidden motives. Assuming omni beams were unlocked and people could run 8 of them, who does it hurt? If a person joined a group with 8 omni beams on their ship and are pulling their own weight and you're clearing content, what's the problem? Why should they not be allowed to do it? Also why are giving science a pass while saying this would be broken? If you're going to have standards be consistent with them otherwise it's double standard hypocrisy.
"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
The base line damage of an omni and a single array is identical.
I'm not sure how many other ways you want me to say it. You are incorrect. Having potentially one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant.
Turret boats don't top the DPS charts because... they do 34% reduced damage vs a single cannon. Single cannons don't top the charge because they do a lot less damage vs Dual cannons, (AND CSV nullifies some of the arc penalty DHC pay.)
As far as who does it hurt if we unlocked omnis. It would hurt the game>.<
You know why no one uses single cannons ? I know you know. It's because they suck. Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
Unlocking omnis would make single arrays suck. It would make DBB mostly suck. DBB would still be able to do slighly more DPS in a perfectly piloted situation, but 9 times out of 10 a ship with 7- 8 360 degree single arrays is going to do a lot more dps.
There would be no reason to run anything but omnis. In fact running any other beam would be a DPS loss. I'm not talking about a DAMAGE number here I'm talking about damage per second. DPS wise having 360 degrees of fire makes for more DPS. Yes in the case of a turret the massive difference between turret and DHC dmg means that isn't the case. But with omnis again omni and single arrays are =. They don't trade any base damage... they give up one extra mod, which isn't much.
The only way to unlock them and not have them make Single arrays a stupid weapon to slot... would be if they got a damage reduction. I don't think anyone actually wants a damage reduction. I'm fine with only being able to slot a couple as they do single array damage. The only ships I would fly that have a 3rd or 4th rear slot I can use for other things. KCB, or a cannon to use with Mixed Arm Synergies, or collected armaments. Also hey broadside builds are still an option on the few 4/4 modern ships.
Rename crafted omnis to "Heavy Omni-Directional Beam Array" and limit it to one and unlock set omnis (limit them to rear slots if you want, though that wouldn't be necessary I guess).
^ 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
The base line damage of an omni and a single array is identical.
I'm not sure how many other ways you want me to say it. You are incorrect. Having potentially one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant.
Turret boats don't top the DPS charts because... they do 34% reduced damage vs a single cannon. Single cannons don't top the charge because they do a lot less damage vs Dual cannons, (AND CSV nullifies some of the arc penalty DHC pay.)
As far as who does it hurt if we unlocked omnis. It would hurt the game>.<
You know why no one uses single cannons ? I know you know. It's because they suck. Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
Unlocking omnis would make single arrays suck. It would make DBB mostly suck. DBB would still be able to do slighly more DPS in a perfectly piloted situation, but 9 times out of 10 a ship with 7- 8 360 degree single arrays is going to do a lot more dps.
There would be no reason to run anything but omnis. In fact running any other beam would be a DPS loss. I'm not talking about a DAMAGE number here I'm talking about damage per second. DPS wise having 360 degrees of fire makes for more DPS. Yes in the case of a turret the massive difference between turret and DHC dmg means that isn't the case. But with omnis again omni and single arrays are =. They don't trade any base damage... they give up one extra mod, which isn't much.
The only way to unlock them and not have them make Single arrays a stupid weapon to slot... would be if they got a damage reduction. I don't think anyone actually wants a damage reduction. I'm fine with only being able to slot a couple as they do single array damage. The only ships I would fly that have a 3rd or 4th rear slot I can use for other things. KCB, or a cannon to use with Mixed Arm Synergies, or collected armaments. Also hey broadside builds are still an option on the few 4/4 modern ships.
Ok I'm gonna have to add my 2 ECs on this.
They're not equal because of the Arc mod. In effect, a purple quality Omni is mostly equivalent to maybe a blue quality beam array because of trading one of the mods for the arc mod. While it does balance out in the fact it has a 360 degree firing arc, and thus will always be able to fire, it is still not quite able to match a standard beam array. The balancing factor is its ability to always be on target, thus always able to deal damage. Most beam builds get the most damage out of broadside attacks. Integrating Omni Beams into a build means that the effective firing arc for all weapons (Lets use a 5/3 here, and assume 4 forward beams and 2 rear Omnis with a torp forward and aft) is now pretty much 3/4 of the firing arcs for the ships. The only weak area is the rear that would only benefit from the Omni Beams. On the side or to the front, all beams firing.
Base damage is affected by mods. So unless you're talking something that has all CrtH or CrtD mods, any Dmg mods is going to alter the base damage output of the weapon. So... lets look at two mk XII purples here.
Omni Beam [crtD][crtH][Arc]
Beam Array [crtD]x2[crtH]
Based damage would probably be similar, especially as the omni will always be able to fire unlike the beam array.
Omni Beam [Dmg]x2[Arc]
Beam Array [Dmg]x3
Nope. Not as close. That extra Dmg mod bumps the standard beam array up higher.
Effectively an Omni is equivelant to a beam array of one quality level lower because of the locked Arc mod. That is not to say it is useless. It is still able to dish it out, but it is not quite on par with an equivalent beam array. And it is more noticable with people reengineering for maximum damage output for min/max building. But for the average player that doesn't care about min/max building, its fine as is.
Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
I actually run all turrets on the Orion Blackguard for one of my Orion KDF toons, because the ship's covered with turret blisters so I figured it was thematic. Also, she has two fighter bays with Cutpurse-class fighters, so that's really where most of my damage comes from anyway. She may not put out the sort of massive spike damage the DPS guys live for, but she's quite adept in both TFOs and regular mission content.
As for power creep arguments. Yes game developers should at least consider it a little bit. Having said that the main issue for Cryptic is it makes LAZY builds more common. The Jelly ship is bad enough.
Yeah.. would have to agree that the Jellyfish is pretty bad so why promote even more lazy builds when that sort of thing can be limited to a single ship ?
As for power creep arguments. Yes game developers should at least consider it a little bit. Having said that the main issue for Cryptic is it makes LAZY builds more common. The Jelly ship is bad enough.
Yeah.. would have to agree that the Jellyfish is pretty bad so why promote even more lazy builds when that sort of thing can be limited to a single ship ?
Actually the Ba'ul ship does the same thing to a point.
The removal of the Omni limit will only serve to appeal more to AFK'ing, especially on static AFK build's. Even with a missing DMG mod, Omni's are still as potent as standard Arrays. I do not get why folk can't cope with the missing 90 degrees, because even with really sluggish ships, it's easy enough to keep enemies in your broad-side with Standard arrays.
"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.
Why is it relevant to you if people are playing "lazy" ?
^ 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
Why is it relevant to you if people are playing "lazy" ?
Area Denial Builds are decent in defense operations, but you have to know WHEN to park and when to move. If you just find a random spot, hit a button, then go off to do whatever for 5-15 minutes not paying attention to the changing environment... you're not contributing as much as you can.
For me an Area Denial Build can help free up the team to focus on other areas, BUT it has to be in a good place to actually be effective. Otherwise... its just dead weight occasionally poking things to keep from being labled AFK.
Why is it relevant to you if people are playing "lazy" ?
I think that there may be those who don't want to see game play turn into a login and push one button to play sort of thing. I can see their point as my own immersion seems to increase immensely when I actually have to actively pilot my ship and use it's multiple abilities.
The base line damage of an omni and a single array is identical.
I'm not sure how many other ways you want me to say it. You are incorrect. Having potentially one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant.
Turret boats don't top the DPS charts because... they do 34% reduced damage vs a single cannon. Single cannons don't top the charge because they do a lot less damage vs Dual cannons, (AND CSV nullifies some of the arc penalty DHC pay.)
Except the math says I'm correct and no amount of wishful thinking changes that. Funny how you've gone from "you only base your argument on mods and they're only different because of one damage mod" to now saying "having one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant". Convenient how the goal posts keep getting moved.
Unfortunately for your argument, yes the extra dmg mod does matter in this instance. As my cohort pointed out below, the fact the crafted omni beam cannot get that extra dmg mod limits the crafted omni in terms of its damage potential. If our hypothetical beam array and omni beam are both firing and hitting a target, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array under any circumstances and is literally impossible for it to do so. The missing dmg mod is the equivalent to leaving it down a rarity or mark grade. Again as said since crafted omnis are the only omnis that would be a potential issue, nerf the crafted omnis to be in line with set omnis so they're doing 15%-25% less than a beam array. Problem solved. Only issue at that point is people complaining to complain.
As far as who does it hurt if we unlocked omnis. It would hurt the game>.<
You know why no one uses single cannons ? I know you know. It's because they suck. Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
Sorry but I'm calling shenanigans here. If you nerf crafted omni beams to bring them in line with set omnis then who is hurt by their unlocking? I do not accept the "it would hurt the game" argument here when there are far far worse things out there such as half the stuff science is doing right now that can literally lag the entire server itself. Yet people want to defend science but say having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong. Just what? Me thinks some people have had a little too much bloodwine or similar if they honestly think that having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong, especially in their nerfed state.
As to why people don't run 8 turrets more often simple, while it can do a fair amount of damage it's not considered flavor of the month meta therefore anything that can't do infinite DPS times infinity is considered bad in this game. Even though its just as viable as anything else. Some people have a super unhealthy obsession with DPS in this game.
So to close on this part I must ask, if you nerf crafted omni beams to be in line with set omnis, again who is hurt specifically? Your entire argument was them doing the same base damage as arrays. Yet if crafted omnis are nerfed to be in line with set omnis that won't be the case. So again who is hurt specifically? Or did this goal post get moved too?
Unlocking omnis would make single arrays suck. It would make DBB mostly suck. DBB would still be able to do slighly more DPS in a perfectly piloted situation, but 9 times out of 10 a ship with 7- 8 360 degree single arrays is going to do a lot more dps.
Only in your mind would this happen. See once again, crafted omni gets nerfed to doing 15%-25% less than beam arrays, thus you have your magical unicorn to guarantee beam arrays still see use and dual banks. Again by your own logic if having the ability to slot 8 omnis would make beam arrays and dual banks suddenly suck, the ability to have 8 turrets on a build means that single cannons and dual/dual heavy cannons also suck. Even though turrets and omnis are/would be doing objectively less damage by the tune of 34% or 15%-25% respectively. You're still also ignoring the massive benefits of set bonuses people would be leaving on the table. So no it would not mean arrays and dual banks suddenly suck. It would just reveal who in the playerbase is easily conned into doing things because "ooo new shiny".
About the only thing you've said that's actually correct is that piloting matters. It doesn't matter how good the build is if the person doesn't know how to use it. I've seen plenty of people in this game get a bunch of mk xv gold gear and still do terrible damage because they don't know what they're doing. By your own logic we should see more people using 8 turrets on a build but we don't.
There would be no reason to run anything but omnis. In fact running any other beam would be a DPS loss. I'm not talking about a DAMAGE number here I'm talking about damage per second. DPS wise having 360 degrees of fire makes for more DPS. Yes in the case of a turret the massive difference between turret and DHC dmg means that isn't the case. But with omnis again omni and single arrays are =. They don't trade any base damage... they give up one extra mod, which isn't much.
Once again this is only in your mind that this is true. I am speaking in terms of damage as a whole, which covers DPS. If you have a beam array and omni both firing and hitting a target with the beam array doing 1618 and the omni doing 1571 per shot, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array. It's mathematically impossible. The only way the omni will ever outdo the beam array is if the beam array stops firing for a long period of time.
By your own logic of extra firing field = more DPS, turrets should be smoking dual/dual heavy cannons and be objectively superior. Yet we see they're not and we rarely if ever see an 8 turrets build. You keep harping on how crafted omnis don't trade base damage, yet keep ignoring what is said to you NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM IN LINE WITH OTHER OMNIS. Crafted omnis are the exception and not the rule. set omnis already deal 15%-25% less damage than beam arrays, and 36% less damage than a dual bank. Nerfing crafted omnis to bring them in line with set omnis reduces the base damage of said crafted omnis. So your entire argument is bogus as you're arguing on what they are no and not what they would actually be. Otherwise in what universe is running something doing objectively less damage than something else going to mean you're doing more than that higher output item? Because it sure isn't this universe.
The only way to unlock them and not have them make Single arrays a stupid weapon to slot... would be if they got a damage reduction. I don't think anyone actually wants a damage reduction. I'm fine with only being able to slot a couple as they do single array damage. The only ships I would fly that have a 3rd or 4th rear slot I can use for other things. KCB, or a cannon to use with Mixed Arm Synergies, or collected armaments. Also hey broadside builds are still an option on the few 4/4 modern ships.
With regards to the line in bold, that's what I've argued the entire time! NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM INTO THE SAME DAMAGE RANGE AS SET OMNIS. As in reduce the damage of said crafted omnis since they're the only problem here. Good grief man I don't know how I can make it anymore clear. Do you not know what it means to nerf something? Like good grief dude. I'm willing to have crafted omnis to eat a nerf if it means being able to slot 8 omnis like I should've been able to from the start.
For the line in italics, broadside builds will always be an option even if omnis were unlocked. Likewise you could still use dual bank builds, cannon builds and the like. You can fly single cannon builds right now if you wanted, you can fly all turrets, or what have you. Simply because something isn't a DPS chart topper doesn't make it unplayable. I hate the idea that some people in this game perpetuate that if something isn't "meta" it's somehow trash. Should omnis be unlocked no one is being forced to use them just like I ignore most so called "meta" builds because I do not find them fun. I can crank 150k as is with my tank right now and I'm good with that. I do not need more than 150k even though I'm capable of doing more. Anything beyond 250k in this game is a luxury that is not needed at all.
You are not required to like the potential ability of 8 omnis. But simply because you dislike it doesn't make it bad for the game nor does it mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it. So long as said individual pulls their own weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask, why do you care? Who is being hurt by it? Saying "the game" is not a valid answer to those questions.
"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
The base line damage of an omni and a single array is identical.
I'm not sure how many other ways you want me to say it. You are incorrect. Having potentially one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant.
Turret boats don't top the DPS charts because... they do 34% reduced damage vs a single cannon. Single cannons don't top the charge because they do a lot less damage vs Dual cannons, (AND CSV nullifies some of the arc penalty DHC pay.)
Except the math says I'm correct and no amount of wishful thinking changes that. Funny how you've gone from "you only base your argument on mods and they're only different because of one damage mod" to now saying "having one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant". Convenient how the goal posts keep getting moved.
Unfortunately for your argument, yes the extra dmg mod does matter in this instance. As my cohort pointed out below, the fact the crafted omni beam cannot get that extra dmg mod limits the crafted omni in terms of its damage potential. If our hypothetical beam array and omni beam are both firing and hitting a target, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array under any circumstances and is literally impossible for it to do so. The missing dmg mod is the equivalent to leaving it down a rarity or mark grade. Again as said since crafted omnis are the only omnis that would be a potential issue, nerf the crafted omnis to be in line with set omnis so they're doing 15%-25% less than a beam array. Problem solved. Only issue at that point is people complaining to complain.
As far as who does it hurt if we unlocked omnis. It would hurt the game>.<
You know why no one uses single cannons ? I know you know. It's because they suck. Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
Sorry but I'm calling shenanigans here. If you nerf crafted omni beams to bring them in line with set omnis then who is hurt by their unlocking? I do not accept the "it would hurt the game" argument here when there are far far worse things out there such as half the stuff science is doing right now that can literally lag the entire server itself. Yet people want to defend science but say having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong. Just what? Me thinks some people have had a little too much bloodwine or similar if they honestly think that having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong, especially in their nerfed state.
As to why people don't run 8 turrets more often simple, while it can do a fair amount of damage it's not considered flavor of the month meta therefore anything that can't do infinite DPS times infinity is considered bad in this game. Even though its just as viable as anything else. Some people have a super unhealthy obsession with DPS in this game.
So to close on this part I must ask, if you nerf crafted omni beams to be in line with set omnis, again who is hurt specifically? Your entire argument was them doing the same base damage as arrays. Yet if crafted omnis are nerfed to be in line with set omnis that won't be the case. So again who is hurt specifically? Or did this goal post get moved too?
Unlocking omnis would make single arrays suck. It would make DBB mostly suck. DBB would still be able to do slighly more DPS in a perfectly piloted situation, but 9 times out of 10 a ship with 7- 8 360 degree single arrays is going to do a lot more dps.
Only in your mind would this happen. See once again, crafted omni gets nerfed to doing 15%-25% less than beam arrays, thus you have your magical unicorn to guarantee beam arrays still see use and dual banks. Again by your own logic if having the ability to slot 8 omnis would make beam arrays and dual banks suddenly suck, the ability to have 8 turrets on a build means that single cannons and dual/dual heavy cannons also suck. Even though turrets and omnis are/would be doing objectively less damage by the tune of 34% or 15%-25% respectively. You're still also ignoring the massive benefits of set bonuses people would be leaving on the table. So no it would not mean arrays and dual banks suddenly suck. It would just reveal who in the playerbase is easily conned into doing things because "ooo new shiny".
About the only thing you've said that's actually correct is that piloting matters. It doesn't matter how good the build is if the person doesn't know how to use it. I've seen plenty of people in this game get a bunch of mk xv gold gear and still do terrible damage because they don't know what they're doing. By your own logic we should see more people using 8 turrets on a build but we don't.
There would be no reason to run anything but omnis. In fact running any other beam would be a DPS loss. I'm not talking about a DAMAGE number here I'm talking about damage per second. DPS wise having 360 degrees of fire makes for more DPS. Yes in the case of a turret the massive difference between turret and DHC dmg means that isn't the case. But with omnis again omni and single arrays are =. They don't trade any base damage... they give up one extra mod, which isn't much.
Once again this is only in your mind that this is true. I am speaking in terms of damage as a whole, which covers DPS. If you have a beam array and omni both firing and hitting a target with the beam array doing 1618 and the omni doing 1571 per shot, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array. It's mathematically impossible. The only way the omni will ever outdo the beam array is if the beam array stops firing for a long period of time.
By your own logic of extra firing field = more DPS, turrets should be smoking dual/dual heavy cannons and be objectively superior. Yet we see they're not and we rarely if ever see an 8 turrets build. You keep harping on how crafted omnis don't trade base damage, yet keep ignoring what is said to you NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM IN LINE WITH OTHER OMNIS. Crafted omnis are the exception and not the rule. set omnis already deal 15%-25% less damage than beam arrays, and 36% less damage than a dual bank. Nerfing crafted omnis to bring them in line with set omnis reduces the base damage of said crafted omnis. So your entire argument is bogus as you're arguing on what they are no and not what they would actually be. Otherwise in what universe is running something doing objectively less damage than something else going to mean you're doing more than that higher output item? Because it sure isn't this universe.
The only way to unlock them and not have them make Single arrays a stupid weapon to slot... would be if they got a damage reduction. I don't think anyone actually wants a damage reduction. I'm fine with only being able to slot a couple as they do single array damage. The only ships I would fly that have a 3rd or 4th rear slot I can use for other things. KCB, or a cannon to use with Mixed Arm Synergies, or collected armaments. Also hey broadside builds are still an option on the few 4/4 modern ships.
With regards to the line in bold, that's what I've argued the entire time! NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM INTO THE SAME DAMAGE RANGE AS SET OMNIS. As in reduce the damage of said crafted omnis since they're the only problem here. Good grief man I don't know how I can make it anymore clear. Do you not know what it means to nerf something? Like good grief dude. I'm willing to have crafted omnis to eat a nerf if it means being able to slot 8 omnis like I should've been able to from the start.
For the line in italics, broadside builds will always be an option even if omnis were unlocked. Likewise you could still use dual bank builds, cannon builds and the like. You can fly single cannon builds right now if you wanted, you can fly all turrets, or what have you. Simply because something isn't a DPS chart topper doesn't make it unplayable. I hate the idea that some people in this game perpetuate that if something isn't "meta" it's somehow trash. Should omnis be unlocked no one is being forced to use them just like I ignore most so called "meta" builds because I do not find them fun. I can crank 150k as is with my tank right now and I'm good with that. I do not need more than 150k even though I'm capable of doing more. Anything beyond 250k in this game is a luxury that is not needed at all.
You are not required to like the potential ability of 8 omnis. But simply because you dislike it doesn't make it bad for the game nor does it mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it. So long as said individual pulls their own weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask, why do you care? Who is being hurt by it? Saying "the game" is not a valid answer to those questions.
The ones who would be hurt by nerfing omnis are the DBB build players because they need the damage that current omnis do to make up for the loss in damage they have to accept to use DBBs instead of cannons up front.
And yes, at a basic level math does not lie, but to be useful that math has to model the situation correctly, and ignoring the effect of time-on-target does not produce a useful model in this case.
What the model your math is based on fails to take into account is that in forward-oriented builds the rear regular arrays never fire on approach and only fire after the DBBs slip out of arc, and then they are usually firing on intact shields unless you have a lot of drain skill and hose the target down with tachyon beam and tractor beam (which takes a space doff-slot to get that drain effect which canon-armed builds can use for something else) or are flying a very nimble escort (as in fully decked out for dogfighting Faeht-level of maneuverability) which can hairpin turn fast enough to catch the same shield the DBBs were chewing on.
And no, skill at maneuvering one's ship does not help, in fact it often makes this particular situation worse because the object of a forward-oriented build is to keep your nose guns pointed at the target, which means the tail guns rarely even fire unless you use FAW (or overrun the target like in the previous paragraph which of course means your main battery is no longer firing).
So instead of those DBBs being supported by close-to-normal-array level of damage from the rear they either get nothing from the rear if you mount arrays or very poor (and insufficient) turret-level support if the omnis get nerfed enough to make 8 omni builds practical (and no, just nerfing crafted beams would not help, it will have to be a massive nerf of both (and a corresponding buff to DBBs) to avoid problems).
As husanakx pointed out, with the high forward ratio of hardpoints that a lot of the more recent ships have, what need is there for more than two or three omnis besides a gee-wiz niche build anyway? The real problem is not the minor difference in damage between set and non-set omnis, it is the problem of having to break sets or substitute a turret or other inappropriate weapon because the current rules only allow ONE SET OMNI.
The ones who would be hurt by nerfing omnis are the DBB build players because they need the damage that current omnis do to make up for the loss in damage they have to accept to use DBBs instead of cannons up front.
Untrue overall. Assuming a 5/3 or 4/3 layout you're talking 1 weapon effected in the negative. Assuming the standard setup of a single non-set omni, a set omni, and the KCB, only the non-set omni is effected in the negative. If omnis were unlocked this allows people to forgo the KCB entirely unless they want the 2 set. They can now pick up a second non-set omni or an additional set omni. Such as a crafted polaron omni, the chronometric polaron omni, and the morphogenic omni. Though in reality you would see more things like inhibited polaron omni, chronometric, and morphogenic.
Assuming a 5/2 or 4/2 you would see people running 2 set omnis vs ever including a crafted one. Why would folks run crafted when they could run 2 set omnis such as say Trilithium omni and Inhibiting Phaser.
Overall it would lead to a DPS increase vs before, or worst case scenario it evens out. Keep in mind turrets do not have limitations on their set pieces to the degree omnis do.
And yes, at a basic level math does not lie, but to be useful that math has to model the situation correctly, and ignoring the effect of time-on-target does not produce a useful model in this case.
I've already said a weapon that's not firing deals no damage and even a ground rifle can outdo it at that point. I've also said that if a beam array isn't firing it's doing no damage and the omni will outdo it. I've also said that if both are firing the omni will never outdo the array so what's your point? However that's not the issue I have with this segment of your argument.
And no, skill at maneuvering one's ship does not help, in fact it often makes this particular situation worse because the object of a forward-oriented build is to keep your nose guns pointed at the target, which means the tail guns rarely even fire unless you use FAW (or overrun the target like in the previous paragraph which of course means your main battery is no longer firing).
And here is where your argument falls apart. If as you say I need to "keep in mind the effect of time on target" aka the effect of piloting, then you cannot say that maneuvering the ship doesn't matter. And if you're going to say maneuvering doesn't matter then you can't say I need to "keep in mind effect of time on target". Either piloting matters or it doesn't, there is no middle ground to that. You can't say in one instance it matters and in the other it doesn't, that's not how that works.
As long as omnis are set to autofire, they will always fire unless something shuts off your weapons. You do not always have to see the visuals for your weapons to fire. Also as I said before I assume people are competent enough to keep their ships on target most of the time. I find it funny that I was told before "why are you comparing to dual banks" and here people are now complaining about potentially hurting dual banks as reasons omnis should stay locked, even after previously saying they would be cool with crafted omnis being nerfed to unlock them. Some folks in here need to make up their minds.
So instead of those DBBs being supported by close-to-normal-array level of damage from the rear they either get nothing from the rear if you mount arrays or very poor (and insufficient) turret-level support if the omnis get nerfed enough to make 8 omni builds practical (and no, just nerfing crafted beams would not help, it will have to be a massive nerf of both (and a corresponding buff to DBBs) to avoid problems).
First up, if you're doing a dual bank build, why are you mount arrays in the rear to start with? In that scenario that's not a problem with omnis or beam arrays, that's a problem of PEBCAK (problem exists between chair and keyboard). If you mount arrays but face forward so your arrays never fire instead of using omnis to back up your dual banks, that's on you, not the game. Set omnis already do 36% less damage than a dual bank as is. The crafted omnis also do around 25% less damage than dual banks without a nerf. I'm not going to complain if they wanted to buff dual banks but it's not needed. If only one item is the problem you don't nerf the entirety of the game, you nerf the one item.
As husanakx pointed out, with the high forward ratio of hardpoints that a lot of the more recent ships have, what need is there for more than two or three omnis besides a gee-wiz niche build anyway? The real problem is not the minor difference in damage between set and non-set omnis, it is the problem of having to break sets or substitute a turret or other inappropriate weapon because the current rules only allow ONE SET OMNI.
As much as I hate to say it this is how I know some people in here don't know what they're talking about. If as he said crafted omnis have the same base damage as beam arrays, this means there is a 12%-22% difference between crafted omnis and set omnis. That's far from minor and something you will feel.
Also thank you for proving my point for me with regards to the bolded section and why omnis need to be unlocked. If turrets are not restricted in terms of set turrets, omnis shouldn't be restricted either. I find it hilarious people say they should be fairly equal, but are whining about how omnis need to stay restricted keeping turrets and omnis unequal. Which is it? do you want them to be equal or not?
As to whether it's niche to have 8 omnis or not is irrelevant to the fact people should be allowed to do it. The power creep argument is not valid in this instance. If folks don't like the idea of 8 omnis nothing is forcing them to run a build doing as such. If you think something would give better damage then run that higher damage. So long as that person is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask who is it hurting? Something no one in here has been able to give an answer to.
Also upon further consideration I have to ask. If having 8 omnis would be a "gee-wiz niche build" then by definition it wouldn't be widespread and only a handful of people would ever use them, thus further undercutting previous points about everyone suddenly going to 8 omnis. If it's going to be niche then by definition it's not going to be overpowered and spread everywhere. So what's the issue if it's just going to be niche?
Post edited by darkbladejk on
"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
The ones who would be hurt by nerfing omnis are the DBB build players because they need the damage that current omnis do to make up for the loss in damage they have to accept to use DBBs instead of cannons up front.
Untrue overall. Assuming a 5/3 or 4/3 layout you're talking 1 weapon effected in the negative. Assuming the standard setup of a single non-set omni, a set omni, and the KCB, only the non-set omni is effected in the negative. If omnis were unlocked this allows people to forgo the KCB entirely unless they want the 2 set. They can now pick up a second non-set omni or an additional set omni. Such as a crafted polaron omni, the chronometric polaron omni, and the morphogenic omni. Though in reality you would see more things like inhibited polaron omni, chronometric, and morphogenic.
Assuming a 5/2 or 4/2 you would see people running 2 set omnis vs ever including a crafted one. Why would folks run crafted when they could run 2 set omnis such as say Trilithium omni and Inhibiting Phaser.
Overall it would lead to a DPS increase vs before, or worst case scenario it evens out. Keep in mind turrets do not have limitations on their set pieces to the degree omnis do.
Technically, it is TWO rear weapons negatively effected because there are two omnis back there and both would have to be nerfed in order to negatively balance them compared to beam arrays to the point where a lot of people would not simply mount omnis wherever they would put beam arrays if there was no cap at all on the number of omnis allowed.
That was not the point of the line you quoted though, it was that the nerfing (and let's be realistic, it would be both types of omni, not just crafted, if anything was done at all) would also negatively effect the DBBS up front (or at least two of them in high-differential hardpoint arrangements anyway), if only indirectly, because they would not get enough support from the rear hardpoints if omnis were nerfed to turret-like damage levels without the DBBs being buffed to cannon-like levels of damage. Why do you think single cannons and DBBs are almost always the cheapest ship weapons to buy on the exchange? They need all the help they can get from the rear hardpoints.
And yes, at a basic level math does not lie, but to be useful that math has to model the situation correctly, and ignoring the effect of time-on-target does not produce a useful model in this case.
I've already said a weapon that's not firing deals no damage and even a ground rifle can outdo it at that point. I've also said that if a beam array isn't firing it's doing no damage and the omni will outdo it. I've also said that if both are firing the omni will never outdo the array so what's your point? However that's not the issue I have with this segment of your argument.
Yes, you have said it, but your model doesn't take the disparity in time-on-target into account. Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions, like they were on a firing line shooting at fixed targets where each shot is guaranteed to be in arc, arrays will outperform omnis every time, but that perfect setup is rarely, if ever, seen in the combat scenarios.
And no, skill at maneuvering one's ship does not help, in fact it often makes this particular situation worse because the object of a forward-oriented build is to keep your nose guns pointed at the target, which means the tail guns rarely even fire unless you use FAW (or overrun the target like in the previous paragraph which of course means your main battery is no longer firing).
And here is where your argument falls apart. If as you say I need to "keep in mind the effect of time on target" aka the effect of piloting, then you cannot say that maneuvering the ship doesn't matter. And if you're going to say maneuvering doesn't matter then you can't say I need to "keep in mind effect of time on target". Either piloting matters or it doesn't, there is no middle ground to that. You can't say in one instance it matters and in the other it doesn't, that's not how that works.
As long as omnis are set to autofire, they will always fire unless something shuts off your weapons. You do not always have to see the visuals for your weapons to fire. Also as I said before I assume people are competent enough to keep their ships on target most of the time. I find it funny that I was told before "why are you comparing to dual banks" and here people are now complaining about potentially hurting dual banks as reasons omnis should stay locked, even after previously saying they would be cool with crafted omnis being nerfed to unlock them. Some folks in here need to make up their minds.
Ok, looking back I see that got a bit tangled. I got called away after starting the third paragraph and but kept thinking about it in the back of my mind and when I got back I missed typing a bit of it so the contexts are a bit tangled. I had started to write something more or less like what I wrote above, that your mathematical model only works on a static firing line and instead segued into the middle of the array arc context.
Missing from that is where I would have started out saying that if omnis were nerfed to near cannon levels it would be a problem on the beam side of things since the closest thing that would be left to the current omni is the array, which brings in a big firing arc problem.
I admit that arc part probably has more than just a bit of baggage from chat discussions of the subject where someone tries to shout down everyone else with the irritating old "ya gotta git gud!" diversion, using the word "maneuver" as a proxy for the cliche. And the way things like this crop up in chat makes me suspect more players read the forums than let on).
What it boils down to though is that with DBBs there are not a lot of good options for rear hardpoint weapons, which means omnis for at least decent support, turrets which are far from optimal (both mechanics and style-wise), or other weapons which simply do not directly support a forward firing attack run at all. Nerfing omnis (both types remember) would make DBBs even more the poor cousin to multiple-mount cannons.
So instead of those DBBs being supported by close-to-normal-array level of damage from the rear they either get nothing from the rear if you mount arrays or very poor (and insufficient) turret-level support if the omnis get nerfed enough to make 8 omni builds practical (and no, just nerfing crafted beams would not help, it will have to be a massive nerf of both (and a corresponding buff to DBBs) to avoid problems).
First up, if you're doing a dual bank build, why are you mount arrays in the rear to start with? In that scenario that's not a problem with omnis or beam arrays, that's a problem of PEBCAK (problem exists between chair and keyboard). If you mount arrays but face forward so your arrays never fire instead of using omnis to back up your dual banks, that's on you, not the game. Set omnis already do 36% less damage than a dual bank as is. The crafted omnis also do around 25% less damage than dual banks without a nerf. I'm not going to complain if they wanted to buff dual banks but it's not needed. If only one item is the problem you don't nerf the entirety of the game, you nerf the one item.
To try and get on the same page here, what you quoted in this block was just the example of why maneuver is not a magic cure-all for why nerfing omnis is not a good idea (and as I said, judging by the typical example of the beast such a nerf would inevitably fall on BOTH types of omni, not just crafted), which was (at least supposed to be) my assertion in the fragment you quoted just before this one. I am not certain why you split it off into a separate quote, I did do a paragraph break, but that was to make reading it easier than a big block of text and is a standard way to accomplish that.
Of course I don't recommend arrays in the rear with DBB builds as a general thing (though I have been forced to do that to some extent for set requirements or theme purposes occasionally, especially when trying to avoid turrets) even turrets would be better damage wise, though not enough to make up for the disadvantage DBBs have compared to multimount cannons forward and turrets in the rear since DBBs need near-array level of support from the rear weapons. No amount of "Get Gud!" nonsense about maneuver will improve the damage output of turrets to the level needed by the DBBs or get rear arrays to fire at the same target on the same shield facing at the same time as DBBs.
As husanakx pointed out, with the high forward ratio of hardpoints that a lot of the more recent ships have, what need is there for more than two or three omnis besides a gee-wiz niche build anyway? The real problem is not the minor difference in damage between set and non-set omnis, it is the problem of having to break sets or substitute a turret or other inappropriate weapon because the current rules only allow ONE SET OMNI.
As much as I hate to say it this is how I know some people in here don't know what they're talking about. If as he said crafted omnis have the same base damage as beam arrays, this means there is a 12%-22% difference between crafted omnis and set omnis. That's far from minor and something you will feel.
Also thank you for proving my point for me with regards to the bolded section and why omnis need to be unlocked. If turrets are not restricted in terms of set turrets, omnis shouldn't be restricted either. I find it hilarious people say they should be fairly equal, but are whining about how omnis need to stay restricted keeping turrets and omnis unequal. Which is it? do you want them to be equal or not?
As to whether it's niche to have 8 omnis or not is irrelevant to the fact people should be allowed to do it. The power creep argument is not valid in this instance. If folks don't like the idea of 8 omnis nothing is forcing them to run a build doing as such. If you think something would give better damage then run that higher damage. So long as that person is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask who is it hurting? Something no one in here has been able to give an answer to.
Also upon further consideration I have to ask. If having 8 omnis would be a "gee-wiz niche build" then by definition it wouldn't be widespread and only a handful of people would ever use them, thus further undercutting previous points about everyone suddenly going to 8 omnis. If it's going to be niche then by definition it's not going to be overpowered and spread everywhere. So what's the issue if it's just going to be niche?
I have not addressed the semantic gymnastics you two were engaged in before this because I really don't think the details matter as much as the overall performance, which at least feels like it is about the same between the two types (what set omnis lose in base seems to be compensated for by set bonuses, especially overall since the bonuses usually help other weapons or abilities on the ship too). One important point about it that probably should be brought up though is that the devs apparently feel that omnis push the envelope so hard that they reduced the base damage (or whatever you want to call it) of the omni itself to (presumably) keep the set bonuses from breaking it.
With omni's being that close to arrays in damage, and the fact that the Galactica style turret build actually works (if rather lackluster), I suspect that an all-omni build would work well enough to catch on even if it is a gee-wiz "look ma! no main guns!" kind of stunt. Just nerfing crafted omnis to set omni base-damage level and lifting all other restrictions would most likely end up relegating arrays to the same doldrums as single cannons.
Unlocking to just two (or possibly three) omnis of any kind would not hurt (parses and anecdotes have proven that already where set omnis are concerned) and would help themed and set builds considerably while not obsoleting current builds. It would be a miracle if the nerf-and-totally-unrestrict route could do the same on both factors.
And yes, I think the restrictions should be loosened, mainly because of set-omni issues with beam boats, but I don't see a cap of say, three as long as that three are unrestricted as to subtype to be overly restrictive (even two of any kind would do better than the current situation though you really do need three for some set combinations).
The power creep in the game would probably also cover the difference between an all-array broadside build and an all-omni build, again indicating that arrays would most likely join single cannons in keeping the dodo's company in extinction if the cap was completely lifted unless the omnis were nerfed to near-turret levels (which in turn would probably mean DBBs join them on that beach as well, and they already have one foot on it as it is, judging by the market).
Being a silly gee-wiz build does not mean an 8 omni scheme couldn't go mainstream or semi-mainstream if it proved to be effective enough, especially since it would not require any skill at maneuvering beyond just keeping it in range, and it would allow concentrating on stuff like science dirty tricks more. If the devs didn't massively nerf all of the omni's that 8 omni build could even have a good shot at being the new meta.
Technically, it is TWO rear weapons negatively effected because there are two omnis back there and both would have to be nerfed in order to negatively balance them compared to beam arrays to the point where a lot of people would not simply mount omnis wherever they would put beam arrays if there was no cap at all on the number of omnis allowed.
I'm only going to respond to the relevant sections as to be frank, your response contains alot of irrelevant double speak that contradicts itself. I hate to say that about anyone's posts on here but good grief. There are large parts of this post I simply can't take seriously.
First, this section of yours here is false as precedent has already been established for differences between omnis vs beam arrays and dual banks. All non-crafted omnis fall within a 15%-25% less damage than arrays and 36% less damage than dual banks. Crafted omnis are the only ones outside that window thus the only ones that need a potential nerf if power creep is a concern.
Far as the section in italics, that tells me what your argument is really about, and it has nothing to do with true balance but gatekeeping or attempting to gatekeep because you don't like the idea someone may be able to use a new type of non-meta build. And heaven forbid we give people that option. As I've asked plenty of times, so long as our hypothetical person running 8 omnis on their build is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, what business is it of yours what they used to get there? More on a similar section like this in a minute.
Yes, you have said it, but your model doesn't take the disparity in time-on-target into account. Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions, like they were on a firing line shooting at fixed targets where each shot is guaranteed to be in arc, arrays will outperform omnis every time, but that perfect setup is rarely, if ever, seen in the combat scenarios.
Irrelevant and arbitrary with no way to objectively define. All paper scenarios are hypothetical with no way to account for every single possible outcome. All you can do is figure out the ideal and try to get as close as you can to it. No one who is serious expects a perfect paper scenario to always happen. I'm not going to sit here and play "what if" with a billion difference scenarios until we come to the magic solution where arrays and dual banks lose to omnis because that would require us to be omniscient to see every possible outcome. You could say "but what if (thing) happened" and I could just as easily say "but what if (other thing) happened to nullify it" until we reach the heat death of the universe. If you think I am not considering something, you bear the burden of proof to present your argument and its evidences as you are the one making the assertion. I'm not going to read your mind and try to define your terms for you. You've said I'm not "taking into account disparity in time on target" yet never defined said disparity in any way or given us an example of what that would look like.
Even then the debate was regarding omni damage in relation to arrays and dual banks, which by default assumes both are firing and hitting the target. I'm fully aware that's an on paper perfect scenario and the actual numbers could be higher or lower on both accounts. However I'm not going to play a game of "what if" for eternity.
Ok, looking back I see that got a bit tangled. I got called away after starting the third paragraph and but kept thinking about it in the back of my mind and when I got back I missed typing a bit of it so the contexts are a bit tangled. I had started to write something more or less like what I wrote above, that your mathematical model only works on a static firing line and instead segued into the middle of the array arc context.
See above, if you expect me to account for "disparity in time on target" you need to define this so we have an objective standard to work with. Also as said above the debate was in regards to their damage, which by default assumes them firing and hitting a target. So far that's 0/2 in this response of you failing to define terms.
What it boils down to though is that with DBBs there are not a lot of good options for rear hardpoint weapons, which means omnis for at least decent support, turrets which are far from optimal (both mechanics and style-wise), or other weapons which simply do not directly support a forward firing attack run at all. Nerfing omnis (both types remember) would make DBBs even more the poor cousin to multiple-mount cannons.
If your goal is as much damage as possible then you will only use dual bank builds on something that is 5/3, 4/3, 5/2, 4/2, or 5/1. Typically ships with those configurations are the only ones fast enough to make adequate use of dual banks. In which case if you're using one of the x/3 layouts your most common combo is, 1 crafted omni, 1 set omni, and the KCB. Sometimes in place of the KCB people will use a turret or torp as the two most common things. If one is using an x/2 layout, the most common will be a crafted omni and set omni. If you're running dual banks then you will not need more than those 2 omnis and the KCB, or 2 omnis and turret/torp.
So quite frankly I have to ask, what on earth are you even talking about here or trying to say? Because again respectfully that was completely incoherent. Far as nerfing both crafted omnis and set omnis, see above once more as to why that isn't necessary.
To try and get on the same page here, what you quoted in this block was just the example of why maneuver is not a magic cure-all for why nerfing omnis is not a good idea (and as I said, judging by the typical example of the beast such a nerf would inevitably fall on BOTH types of omni, not just crafted), which was (at least supposed to be) my assertion in the fragment you quoted just before this one. I am not certain why you split it off into a separate quote, I did do a paragraph break, but that was to make reading it easier than a big block of text and is a standard way to accomplish that.
Of course I don't recommend arrays in the rear with DBB builds as a general thing (though I have been forced to do that to some extent for set requirements or theme purposes occasionally, especially when trying to avoid turrets) even turrets would be better damage wise, though not enough to make up for the disadvantage DBBs have compared to multimount cannons forward and turrets in the rear since DBBs need near-array level of support from the rear weapons. No amount of "Get Gud!" nonsense about maneuver will improve the damage output of turrets to the level needed by the DBBs or get rear arrays to fire at the same target on the same shield facing at the same time as DBBs.
Since you didn't understand why I said what I did there I will explain it. Your two propositions were contradictory and oxymoronic. If you expect me to take into account "disparity in time on target" then by necessity you are expecting me to take into account a situation in which the pilot couldn't keep the ship on target, thus saying their piloting matters. Yet in the very next paragraph you said piloting doesn't matter. Those claims are contradictory and can't both be true. Either you want me to account for piloting somehow and thus need to define your new terms and how you expect me to do that. Or you don't want me to account for piloting and want to stick to the original debate. So which one is it?
For your second paragraph here, again relevance? No one has suggested putting arrays in the rear outside of broadside builds so what was the point in even bringing that up? Point still stands, if your goal is as much damage as possible, why are you putting weapons on the rear of your ship that you know will not be able to back your dual banks? Again that's not a problem with the game but a you problem. So again I must ask, what relevance is this to whether omnis should be unlocked or not?
I have not addressed the semantic gymnastics you two were engaged in before this because I really don't think the details matter as much as the overall performance, which at least feels like it is about the same between the two types (what set omnis lose in base seems to be compensated for by set bonuses, especially overall since the bonuses usually help other weapons or abilities on the ship too). One important point about it that probably should be brought up though is that the devs apparently feel that omnis push the envelope so hard that they reduced the base damage (or whatever you want to call it) of the omni itself to (presumably) keep the set bonuses from breaking it.
My position has been the same from the start and hasn't changed. Far as to why they restricted omnis and keep them restricted today, you would need to ask them that question. Neither of us know with 100% certainty until one of them says it. This is why when I mentioned the reasons I was told years ago I prefaced with "take it with a grain of salt as I'm not sure how accurate it still is." We can only speculate as to why they do certain things. Ultimately I would caution against reading extra things into their actions that aren't stated. Just because I walk into a bakery and buy a cake doesn't automatically mean I'm buying it for someone's birthday. It could just be me liking cake and wanting one.
Though I should thank you for finally acknowledging in this paragraph that precedent already exists for the damage convention of set omnis and they've already had their damage balanced. Thus further undercutting your argument of them needing additional nerfs when they're not the problem. Either way precedent is established and only crafted omnis are the outliers in terms of their damage vs arrays and dual banks. So again only crafted omnis would need a nerf.
Unlocking to just two (or possibly three) omnis of any kind would not hurt (parses and anecdotes have proven that already where set omnis are concerned) and would help themed and set builds considerably while not obsoleting current builds. It would be a miracle if the nerf-and-totally-unrestrict route could do the same on both factors.
This is what I mean when I say your reply is filled with contradictory statements. If as you said previously an all omni build would be niche and a "gee wiz" build, then it's not going to be widespread and won't be obsoleting builds. On the opposite side of the coin if it did obsolete a bunch of builds and was widespread then it wouldn't be niche. So I must ask yet again, which one is it? Is it niche, or would it be widespread? Both can't be true at the same time.
The power creep in the game would probably also cover the difference between an all-array broadside build and an all-omni build, again indicating that arrays would most likely join single cannons in keeping the dodo's company in extinction if the cap was completely lifted unless the omnis were nerfed to near-turret levels (which in turn would probably mean DBBs join them on that beach as well, and they already have one foot on it as it is, judging by the market).
Good thing game balance doesn't revolve around what sells/doesn't sell on the exchange. Otherwise by that logic anything selling for less than a lobi ship (around 250m-325m) would be considered garbage.
Also see again you do not need to nerf omnis to turret levels. cannons/turrets are not beams/omnis. The only thing turrets and omnis have in common is that they both have a 360 degree field of fire. Otherwise cannons and beams are completely different weapon types with completely different build philosophies behind them. Beams and cannons are different weapon types and should be treated as such.
On this point and your previous bit about unlocking only 2-3 omnis not hurting parses, I quite frankly don't care if it hurts/improves someone's parse in this case. What I care about is this. Let's say for example I want to run a polaron dual bank build on a 5/3 or 4/3 ship and wanted to call on the inhibiting polaron, chronometric polaron, and morphogenic polaron sets. The only way I can do this is if I'm running the morphogenic omni along with the chronometric and inhibiting turrets. In other words I either have to give up 2 of the sets or run 2 turrets. Yet if I wanted to run a polaron cannon build this isn't an issue and I can run all 3 sets. That is my issue is that I am arbitrarily restricted if I choose to go with beams vs going with cannons. That is ridiculous and THAT is my issue. It's a double standard and an arbitrary one.
Being a silly gee-wiz build does not mean an 8 omni scheme couldn't go mainstream or semi-mainstream if it proved to be effective enough, especially since it would not require any skill at maneuvering beyond just keeping it in range, and it would allow concentrating on stuff like science dirty tricks more. If the devs didn't massively nerf all of the omni's that 8 omni build could even have a good shot at being the new meta.
These lines in italics when paired with the ones from earlier tell me that the resistance to unlocking omnis has nothing to do with actual balance, but that it might disrupt someone's precious meta. And as I said before, heaven forbid people be afforded another option that isn't meta or that might shake up the meta as is because someone considers it to "not require any skill".
Respectfully, if you're opposed to unlocking omnis because you don't like the idea of them potentially becoming meta (even though it wouldn't) then have the fortitude to say that and don't beat around the bush. There is no need to hide behind a bunch of contradictory arguments that I'm not even convinced you really believe yourself. No one is going to be forced to use 8 omnis, and you won't if you care about pure raw damage output.
As I said before it's ridiculous to me that if I wanted to stack up enough set turrets to run 8 set turrets I can do it, but if I wanted to do the same thing with omnis I'm told I can't do it. I HATE double standards like that because they serve no valid purpose. If the concern is power of the set bonuses you're not stopping me from getting those set bonuses, you're just making it more annoying. If the concern is crafted omnis being too strong then nerf them into line with the set omnis. I really don't understand the obsession some people have with making this more complicated than that or it has to be.
Lastly I will ask for a final time, aside from not liking the build, so long as said hypothetical player is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, why do you care if they choose to run 8 omnis where you don't? How are you personally hurt by it? Who is the victim here?
"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
Rename crafted omnis to "Heavy Omni-Directional Beam Array" and limit it to one and unlock set omnis (limit them to rear slots if you want, though that wouldn't be necessary I guess).
Not a terrible idea at all. For that matter after the rename they could release a new 34% damage reduced non heavy variant.
Comments
Turrets do a fraction of the damage of even single cannons...the main reason to use turrets is because you're using csv/crf, it's more efficient than omnis and cost slightly less power to fire
By the end of the first TOS season Starfleet and the Federation were pretty solidly fleshed out behind the scenes but not all of it made it into the episodes even by the end of TOS (or TAS for that matter) because of Roddenberry's strict show-not-tell policy for the show at that time meant all reveals like that had to be in context of an episode's story and could not take precedence over dialog and whatnot that worked towards the resolution of that story.
That last was also the reason that mention of Sulu being a Starfleet Intelligence agent was cut. The episode where he returned ran over the allowable time even without that background element reveal and it was cut along with whatever else they could trim to bring the runtime within limits, and Roddenberry decided that putting it in the next episode to be made was not appropriate enough without the factor of Sulu returning in it.
Had there been the time though, the short dialog exchange would have revealed that SI maintained a low-key but open presence on most Starfleet ships and when SI missions came up they temporarily detached agents (like Sulu) from the nearest ships to handle them. Admittedly, it was not exactly earthshaking, but it was good enough for an initial glimpse at SI.
Later on, Berman's influence drove the various spinoff series in the opposite direction and unlike TOS they had many technobabble interludes where they would talk about things in far more detail than strictly needed for the plot.
Anyway, the differences between TOS and the various spinoffs was easy enough to attribute to those organizations evolving over time until ENT where the Paramount executives wanted all of the TNG era stuff with just the date changed rather than making an actual "historical" Trek setting. Unfortunately, that "all eras are the same" nonsense is still popular in Hollywood, though SNW is making at least some headway in trying to make it look and feel more TOS-like.
As for the omnibeam stuff, suggestions of nerfing the omnis to turret levels to remove all the limitations would not go over so well. DBBs are not as powerful as the cannon clusters so a beamscort or whatever needs the extra damage the omni's do to not be at a significant disadvantage compared to cannon armed ships.
The only limitation they really need to remove is the nitpicky one-and-one nonsense; allowing any two omnis has proven not to disturb the balance, is not confusing, and for the majority of cases eliminates the need to mix omnis and turrets to run two sets to a reasonable degree.
It doesn't happen often that a post legitimately leaves me scratching my head wondering how someone can be so confident yet so far off at the same time. In what universe is the 1571 of that omni beam I mentioned greater than the 1618 of the beam array because it sure isn't this one. If both are firing and both hitting the target, that omni will never outdo that beam array in terms of pure raw damage. The only way an omni will ever outdo a beam array is if the beam array isn't firing.
Now I have to ask where on earth are you getting this 34% number? As I said I'm not opposed to bringing crafted omnis in line with other omnis that are already lower damage. They don't need to be doing the exact same as turrets. Only problems I'm seeing by the power argument are crafted ones. So nerf them and put them in line with others mentioned. Otherwise having extra targeting arc is NOT a damage increase, but simply allowing the weapon to fire. It's still doing less damage per shot than the beam array.
Lastly for this part, I'm sorry but I don't buy the power creep argument as that ship sailed LONG ago. When you have sci builds that can literally lag the entire server if enough of them are in the same place as has happened in the past, yeah no. 8 omnis is NOTHING compared to that. To suggest otherwise is just spin in my book. I don't care if folks disagree on whether omnis should be restricted still or not, but at least be consistent with your standards. Otherwise when folks aren't consistent it makes it very hard for me to take them serious.
See above, I do not accept this argument as valid as I find the power creep arguments to be spin in this case. Also I am not opposed to crafted omnis being nerfed in line with other omnis since it's really crafted that are the problem. If's ridiculous to suggest it's fine to slot 8 turrets with no issues but not 8 omnis. If slotting 8 360 degree weapons was as potent as people are making it out to be in here, then turret builds would be everywhere and they're not.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Again: lock omnis to rear weapon slot, lift other restrictions. Problem solved.
P.S. as stated: dual beam banks are indeed a thing.
Just for fun I put together a turret build on my mains Miracle Worker Flight Deck Carrier. It's a 5/3 with one Kelvin Photon Torpedo fore and one aft. The remaining 6 slots are turrets.
It did better than expected. Bear in mind, though, that nearly all of my gear is of Epic quality. I was impressed enough to commit the build to a Loadout slot.
It won't win me any DPS prizes, but it comes in handy since cannon weapon types fare better against those pesky Iconian probes than beams in my experience. It's also a little fun to play with such a loadout.
1618 to 1571 is a 3% damage difference. You are comparing a single array with 5 damage mods, against an Omni which can ONLY have 4. As one is dedicated to the [arc] mod. Omnis have a ARC mod and get 110 degrees more arc. That is the only difference. Their damage is identical. If you roll a single array with 4 damage modes instead of 5.... it will also do 1571. THEY are identical. This isn't hard to grok.
The 34% number comes from Turrets. A turret does 34% less base damage then a single cannon. That is what turrets get for 180 degrees of extra arc.
As for power creep arguments. Yes game developers should at least consider it a little bit. Having said that the main issue for Cryptic is it makes LAZY builds more common. The Jelly ship is bad enough. All the complaining about sci spam is still silly... end of the day DEW builds still do more DPS. Upgrading DEW builds isn't required.
IF as you suggest they unlock omnis. Single arrays become as obsolete as single cannons.
The math is what the math is regardless of whether you and I like it or not. We can debate whether or not it's purely because of the extra dmg mod or otherwise but regardless again 1618 =/= 1571. The crafted omni deals less damage than a beam array. Again [arc] is not a damage increase.
I will say I'm glad you've specified where you got the 34% number from. Simultaneously I highlighted some relevant sections in bold because I find these sections extremely telling to the true motivations of the argument.
First the goal was to have crafted omnis be in line with set omnis, now the goal has moved to make them in line with turrets. Crafted omnis are the outlier and the precedent of omnis doing 15%-20% less than beam arrays is already established. Crafted omnis do not need to be nerfed further beyond that. You can't say that there's a difference between turrets and omnis one moment then turn around and demand they be treated the same. Either they're different weapon types or they're not. I find it rather telling as well that dual banks have been left completely out of the beams discussion here. Why is their damage not being mentioned? Why are folks not arguing for beam arrays to catch a buff if the concern is them being left in the dust?
Even then dude far as the second portion in bold, I'm sorry but no, just no. As I asked before, so long as the person in the group is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, what business is it of yours or anyone else what a person has on their ship? How is them having a so called "lazy build" hurting you or anyone else? The answer is of course it's not hurting you and it's really none of your business. I'm sorry but citing the "lazy build" argument just stinks of "that person doesn't play like me and I don't like it so they shouldn't be allowed to do it." Like no you don't get to dictate that to other people.
Lastly if you're going cite power creep arguments be consistent with your standards. If you're going to argue unlocking omnis would be too strong, why are you not arguing for restrictions on turrets and nerfs for science? It goes both ways. You say that unlocking omnis would make beam arrays obsolete yet there are two things, we're only talking crafted omnis being an issue per previous and we've dealt with that. Second is that people are not going to leave all those set bonuses or other items like Terran Task Force Beam on the table, they just won't. If everyone operated the way you say, we would see all turret builds everywhere, but we don't. You might see a number of folks use 8 omnis briefly but that's it. once the novelty wears off you won't see it as much if ever just like many other flavor of the month setups.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Once again crafted omnis would be the outlier and the exception to the rule. I still stand by what I said previously. If one wishes to put 8 crafted omnis on their ship, they should be allowed to do so. You will lose out massively on damage overall by not picking up set bonuses that would've further enhanced your ability, or ignoring other weapons that could hit even harder than that. Having the ability to put 8 omnis on a ship on its own should not be making or breaking you, and if it is then you have much bigger problems to worry about. 8 omnis would be a novelty just like having an all turrets build. You might see them briefly because it's something new, but they too will ultimately fade back into obscurity like every other flavor of the month once the novelty wears off. Replaced by whatever is considered "meta".
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Why are you comparing them to DUAL beam banks? Dual beam banks do more damage yes they have 90 degree firing arcs not 250 or 360. That has always been the games design.... smaller firing arc more damage. This is why Dual heavy cannons do more damage they have 45 degree arcs. The game is designed that way to reward good piloting with more damage.
You seem to be not considering much in terms of crafted omnis. Crafted omnis are the normal omni. Set pieces damage numbers very depending on which ever arbitrary number Cryptics devs choose. That was them balancing sets... its not just omnis any set with a weapon they, figure out what they feel the base damage should be. If omnis are unlocked... People aren't going to load 8 different set omnis and rainbow. They are going to load 7-8 non set omni arrays.
And no matter what you want to argue about 3% differences in damage... facts are facts. Omni arrays have the same base damage as a single array. That is just a fact. Yes you can have one more damage mod on a single array. So what. No one can honestly argue that a 3% base damage [dmg] mod is = to a [arc] mod. If we could re roll one [arc] onto every weapon everyone would.
So first up, you sit here and say it's them balancing the sets by them giving set omnis a lower damage value. Regardless of what that damage value is the set omnis will fall within a 15%-25% on average LESS damage than a standard beam array, and even less than a dual bank as the non-360 weapons of the beam world. Crafted omni beams are the exception to this rule being that they do not fall into that 15%-25% range. When you have all the omnis doing one thing, but only crafted omnis doing another, do you not understand that crafted omnis are the EXCEPTION to the rule and are not the default standard? If you want to say they're "normal" in the sense that they're just basic 360 degree beams, that's valid. But to suggest they are normal in terms of the math they're absolutely not. Once again if the concern is crafted omnis being too strong should omnis ever be unlocked, then as I said prior, nerf crafted omnis to fall within that same 15%-25% less damage range that all other omnis in the game fall into. More on section in italics shortly.
In bolded section you say none can argue that the dmg mod is equal to arc mod in this instance, yet you've done exactly that previously by trying to argue that having the arc mod equates to extra damage because of the 110 degrees extra field of fire. Yet that's not how damage works. If the beam array and omni beam are firing and hitting the target, that omni beam will NEVER outdamage that beam array, period. 1618 will always be greater than 1571. Likewise that beam array of 1618 will always be greater in damage than that inhibited polaron omni at 1408. The only time an omni beam will ever outdo the beam array is if the beam array is not firing. In which case that's not the fault of the beam array but the pilot of the ship. Note once again section in italics which we're getting ready to deal with.
I answered this part last because it gets into a point that needs to be made. As it sits right now with cannons in terms of damage from least to greatest you have: turret --> single cannon --> dual cannons --> dual heavy cannons. Now with the world of beams from least to greatest you have: omni beam --> beam array --> dual banks.
As it sits right now, a turret will do around 34% less damage than a single cannon and even less than dual heavies.
When we look at beams as it sits right now all set omnis fall within 15%-25% less damage than a beam array and ballpark 33% less than dual banks. Crafted omnis are around 3% less than a beam array and around 25% (25.3 exact) less than a dual bank. Crafted omnis are the only type of omni to scale this way thus are the outlier. So again what is the solution? The answer is to bring them in line with other omni types and nerf them to fall within that 15%-25% range set omnis do and 33% less than dual banks.
To answer the question of why I brought up dual banks, you previously said omnis needed to be nerfed by 34% to bring them in line with turrets. I'm assuming in this instance you meant crafted omnis and not purely every existing omni. However you can correct me on that if you did in fact mean every omni. Now with that in mind I brought up dual banks to complete the picture of where beams are at currently. You do not need to have crafted omnis be in line with turrets because a beam is not cannon. The percentages in the beam realm are similar to those in the cannon realm already. So if you want omnis to scale to beam arrays and dual banks similar to turrets vs single cannons and dual/dual heavy cannons, you already have your wish with the exception currently of crafted omni beams.
If your concern is balance, you cannot balance crafted omnis based on what turrets are doing as it's not the same weapon type at all. Instead you would have to balance based on their damage vs beam arrays and dual banks. Also again I find it telling I see no calls for people to nerf science or similar, yet want to cite power creep here. As I said I tend to not take arguments like that seriously because it's a double standard suggesting folks only want build flavors they don't like to get nerfed.
Now for the sections in italics. We've debated the math of the weapons themselves however I see you continue to cling to the section in bold about "if we allow this then everyone will do it" kind of thing. Again I will ask, so what if a bunch of people decide to run 8 crafted omnis and run a so called "lazy build" as you named it? Who is being hurt by that? In that hypothetical scenario if they're pulling their own weight in content and you're clearing content then what is the issue? Because I'm going to be frank here dude, those arguments just stink of "I don't like that kind of build so no one else should be allowed to run it in my game" type of logic. Long as they're pulling their weight and content is being cleared, again what business is it of yours what they choose to run on their ship or what they don't? The answer of course is it's none of your business whether it's a so called "lazy build" or not.
Lastly you claim people would just run 8 crafted omnis and would never mix and match. Who is saying they have to make rainbow builds? Because nowhere did I ever say that's what people had to do. What I HAVE however said is if they do that they're going to be leaving a ton of bonuses and further damage increases on the table. For disruptors let's take the Terran Task Force Disruptor as well as Discovery bonuses with Lorka's console and similar into account. Long as that Terran Task Force Disruptor is on target, it's one of the hardest if not the hardest hitting beams in game. For the Lorka Set, by forgoing the Dark Matter Torpedo and the console (2 most commonly used pieces of the set) you're leaving up to 25% critical severity on the table from the 2 set, along with the 3% crit chance and 120 shield pen from the console itself. So by running 8 crafted omnis you're making your crits 3% less likely to happen, 25% weaker when they do, making it harder to get through enemy shields, using 2 inferior weapons when you could have two of the hardest hitting weapons in game on the ship to take advantage of other traits and abilities, all for the novelty of some crafted omnis. Overall mathematically you will be doing LESS damage if you did that which runs counter to the goal of bumping up your DPS. Now this is just the stuff I thought of off the top of my head for disruptor. I could list more stuff if you like, but you seriously overestimate the crafted omnis here. Would some people run 8 of them for awhile purely because they could, sure. But that would only last until the novelty and newness of it wore off like every other flavor of the month until folks go back to whatever is "meta" at the time. I've seen it too many times in other mmos as well as here.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I didn't make the game take it up with Cryptic they agree with my take.
Your also incorrect on your take on beams. Currently its Omin=Single Array < Dual Beams. Single arrays and omnis are identical. Your argument is based on mods.
I could say [pen] weapons do less damage weapons with all [dmg] mods. This would be true... yet the pen weapons are superior as the [pen] mod is superior to a damage mod. [arc] is superior to a damage mod.
That's not how that works dude or everyone running 8 turrets would always be topping the charts. arc simply equates to extra field of fire. If you have a beam array and an omni a ship and both are firing and hitting their targets then in no universe will that omni outdo that beam array ever. The only time an omni ever outdoes a beam array is if the beam array isn't firing in which case even a mk i ground weapon can outdo that beam array. So are we going to say that mk i ground weapons are better than ship mounted beam arrays now? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous argument dude.
That's not how that works either. Unless you want to assume the hardpoint thing I was told years ago is still accurate, we do not know 100% for sure why they're still limited. You can assume because of power creep and I would even venture that could be part of a safe bet. However until one of them outright says "this is why omni restrictions still exist" neither you or I either one know for sure.
Read what I said again slower as you are objectively wrong about what I've said. My argument has been based on the baseline damage of the omnis themselves and the only time I ever mentioned mods present on the weapons was to demonstrate 2 things, the baseline for my comparisons so someone doesn't say "now run that comparison again with an all dmg setup instead of ACCx4" or some similar argument, and also acknowledging the fact that omnis get one less dmg mod than a beam array be they crafted or set omni.
My argument has been based on the baseline damage of the omnis themselves and has nothing to do with mods beyond what was stated above. One only needs to examine each omni beam to get a read on what its baseline damage is then compare to a beam array. Every non-crafted omni is 15%-25% less base damage than a beam array straight out of the gate. Only crafted omnis are the exception to this rule in that they are 3% less than the beam arrays. So once again if I were going to change something as a developer, the thing I would change is nerfing CRAFTED omni beams only since they are the problem. All the other omni beams are fine. Do you not grasp that omni beams tied to sets are different from omni beams produced from the crafting system? If you can't or won't draw that distinction then there is no point in even trying to debate because it would be in bad faith.
As for your argument about Pen, that entire section is wholly irrelevant and even then is not the same as an arc mod. Pen by its nature is still granting an increase in damage, however instead of directly boosting the weapon its attached to itself, it allows you to bypass some of the foes armor leading to increased damage. Arc never does this. Arc simply grants additional field of fire to what is already there. That's it.
Lastly you've still failed to answer my other questions so I will ask them a final time. I find your outright refusal to answer them rather telling of hidden motives. Assuming omni beams were unlocked and people could run 8 of them, who does it hurt? If a person joined a group with 8 omni beams on their ship and are pulling their own weight and you're clearing content, what's the problem? Why should they not be allowed to do it? Also why are giving science a pass while saying this would be broken? If you're going to have standards be consistent with them otherwise it's double standard hypocrisy.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I'm not sure how many other ways you want me to say it. You are incorrect. Having potentially one extra [dmg] mod is irrelevant.
Turret boats don't top the DPS charts because... they do 34% reduced damage vs a single cannon. Single cannons don't top the charge because they do a lot less damage vs Dual cannons, (AND CSV nullifies some of the arc penalty DHC pay.)
As far as who does it hurt if we unlocked omnis. It would hurt the game>.<
You know why no one uses single cannons ? I know you know. It's because they suck. Why do people not run 8 turrets on a ship.... again you know its cause they suck.
Unlocking omnis would make single arrays suck. It would make DBB mostly suck. DBB would still be able to do slighly more DPS in a perfectly piloted situation, but 9 times out of 10 a ship with 7- 8 360 degree single arrays is going to do a lot more dps.
There would be no reason to run anything but omnis. In fact running any other beam would be a DPS loss. I'm not talking about a DAMAGE number here I'm talking about damage per second. DPS wise having 360 degrees of fire makes for more DPS. Yes in the case of a turret the massive difference between turret and DHC dmg means that isn't the case. But with omnis again omni and single arrays are =. They don't trade any base damage... they give up one extra mod, which isn't much.
The only way to unlock them and not have them make Single arrays a stupid weapon to slot... would be if they got a damage reduction. I don't think anyone actually wants a damage reduction. I'm fine with only being able to slot a couple as they do single array damage. The only ships I would fly that have a 3rd or 4th rear slot I can use for other things. KCB, or a cannon to use with Mixed Arm Synergies, or collected armaments. Also hey broadside builds are still an option on the few 4/4 modern ships.
Rename crafted omnis to "Heavy Omni-Directional Beam Array" and limit it to one and unlock set omnis (limit them to rear slots if you want, though that wouldn't be necessary I guess).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Ok I'm gonna have to add my 2 ECs on this.
They're not equal because of the Arc mod. In effect, a purple quality Omni is mostly equivalent to maybe a blue quality beam array because of trading one of the mods for the arc mod. While it does balance out in the fact it has a 360 degree firing arc, and thus will always be able to fire, it is still not quite able to match a standard beam array. The balancing factor is its ability to always be on target, thus always able to deal damage. Most beam builds get the most damage out of broadside attacks. Integrating Omni Beams into a build means that the effective firing arc for all weapons (Lets use a 5/3 here, and assume 4 forward beams and 2 rear Omnis with a torp forward and aft) is now pretty much 3/4 of the firing arcs for the ships. The only weak area is the rear that would only benefit from the Omni Beams. On the side or to the front, all beams firing.
Base damage is affected by mods. So unless you're talking something that has all CrtH or CrtD mods, any Dmg mods is going to alter the base damage output of the weapon. So... lets look at two mk XII purples here.
Based damage would probably be similar, especially as the omni will always be able to fire unlike the beam array.
Nope. Not as close. That extra Dmg mod bumps the standard beam array up higher.
Effectively an Omni is equivelant to a beam array of one quality level lower because of the locked Arc mod. That is not to say it is useless. It is still able to dish it out, but it is not quite on par with an equivalent beam array. And it is more noticable with people reengineering for maximum damage output for min/max building. But for the average player that doesn't care about min/max building, its fine as is.
Yeah.. would have to agree that the Jellyfish is pretty bad so why promote even more lazy builds when that sort of thing can be limited to a single ship ?
Actually the Ba'ul ship does the same thing to a point.
The removal of the Omni limit will only serve to appeal more to AFK'ing, especially on static AFK build's. Even with a missing DMG mod, Omni's are still as potent as standard Arrays. I do not get why folk can't cope with the missing 90 degrees, because even with really sluggish ships, it's easy enough to keep enemies in your broad-side with Standard arrays.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Area Denial Builds are decent in defense operations, but you have to know WHEN to park and when to move. If you just find a random spot, hit a button, then go off to do whatever for 5-15 minutes not paying attention to the changing environment... you're not contributing as much as you can.
For me an Area Denial Build can help free up the team to focus on other areas, BUT it has to be in a good place to actually be effective. Otherwise... its just dead weight occasionally poking things to keep from being labled AFK.
I think that there may be those who don't want to see game play turn into a login and push one button to play sort of thing. I can see their point as my own immersion seems to increase immensely when I actually have to actively pilot my ship and use it's multiple abilities.
Unfortunately for your argument, yes the extra dmg mod does matter in this instance. As my cohort pointed out below, the fact the crafted omni beam cannot get that extra dmg mod limits the crafted omni in terms of its damage potential. If our hypothetical beam array and omni beam are both firing and hitting a target, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array under any circumstances and is literally impossible for it to do so. The missing dmg mod is the equivalent to leaving it down a rarity or mark grade. Again as said since crafted omnis are the only omnis that would be a potential issue, nerf the crafted omnis to be in line with set omnis so they're doing 15%-25% less than a beam array. Problem solved. Only issue at that point is people complaining to complain.
Sorry but I'm calling shenanigans here. If you nerf crafted omni beams to bring them in line with set omnis then who is hurt by their unlocking? I do not accept the "it would hurt the game" argument here when there are far far worse things out there such as half the stuff science is doing right now that can literally lag the entire server itself. Yet people want to defend science but say having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong. Just what? Me thinks some people have had a little too much bloodwine or similar if they honestly think that having 8 omnis on a ship would be too strong, especially in their nerfed state.
As to why people don't run 8 turrets more often simple, while it can do a fair amount of damage it's not considered flavor of the month meta therefore anything that can't do infinite DPS times infinity is considered bad in this game. Even though its just as viable as anything else. Some people have a super unhealthy obsession with DPS in this game.
So to close on this part I must ask, if you nerf crafted omni beams to be in line with set omnis, again who is hurt specifically? Your entire argument was them doing the same base damage as arrays. Yet if crafted omnis are nerfed to be in line with set omnis that won't be the case. So again who is hurt specifically? Or did this goal post get moved too?
Only in your mind would this happen. See once again, crafted omni gets nerfed to doing 15%-25% less than beam arrays, thus you have your magical unicorn to guarantee beam arrays still see use and dual banks. Again by your own logic if having the ability to slot 8 omnis would make beam arrays and dual banks suddenly suck, the ability to have 8 turrets on a build means that single cannons and dual/dual heavy cannons also suck. Even though turrets and omnis are/would be doing objectively less damage by the tune of 34% or 15%-25% respectively. You're still also ignoring the massive benefits of set bonuses people would be leaving on the table. So no it would not mean arrays and dual banks suddenly suck. It would just reveal who in the playerbase is easily conned into doing things because "ooo new shiny".
About the only thing you've said that's actually correct is that piloting matters. It doesn't matter how good the build is if the person doesn't know how to use it. I've seen plenty of people in this game get a bunch of mk xv gold gear and still do terrible damage because they don't know what they're doing. By your own logic we should see more people using 8 turrets on a build but we don't.
Once again this is only in your mind that this is true. I am speaking in terms of damage as a whole, which covers DPS. If you have a beam array and omni both firing and hitting a target with the beam array doing 1618 and the omni doing 1571 per shot, that omni will NEVER outdo that beam array. It's mathematically impossible. The only way the omni will ever outdo the beam array is if the beam array stops firing for a long period of time.
By your own logic of extra firing field = more DPS, turrets should be smoking dual/dual heavy cannons and be objectively superior. Yet we see they're not and we rarely if ever see an 8 turrets build. You keep harping on how crafted omnis don't trade base damage, yet keep ignoring what is said to you NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM IN LINE WITH OTHER OMNIS. Crafted omnis are the exception and not the rule. set omnis already deal 15%-25% less damage than beam arrays, and 36% less damage than a dual bank. Nerfing crafted omnis to bring them in line with set omnis reduces the base damage of said crafted omnis. So your entire argument is bogus as you're arguing on what they are no and not what they would actually be. Otherwise in what universe is running something doing objectively less damage than something else going to mean you're doing more than that higher output item? Because it sure isn't this universe.
With regards to the line in bold, that's what I've argued the entire time! NERF THE CRAFTED OMNIS TO BRING THEM INTO THE SAME DAMAGE RANGE AS SET OMNIS. As in reduce the damage of said crafted omnis since they're the only problem here. Good grief man I don't know how I can make it anymore clear. Do you not know what it means to nerf something? Like good grief dude. I'm willing to have crafted omnis to eat a nerf if it means being able to slot 8 omnis like I should've been able to from the start.
For the line in italics, broadside builds will always be an option even if omnis were unlocked. Likewise you could still use dual bank builds, cannon builds and the like. You can fly single cannon builds right now if you wanted, you can fly all turrets, or what have you. Simply because something isn't a DPS chart topper doesn't make it unplayable. I hate the idea that some people in this game perpetuate that if something isn't "meta" it's somehow trash. Should omnis be unlocked no one is being forced to use them just like I ignore most so called "meta" builds because I do not find them fun. I can crank 150k as is with my tank right now and I'm good with that. I do not need more than 150k even though I'm capable of doing more. Anything beyond 250k in this game is a luxury that is not needed at all.
You are not required to like the potential ability of 8 omnis. But simply because you dislike it doesn't make it bad for the game nor does it mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it. So long as said individual pulls their own weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask, why do you care? Who is being hurt by it? Saying "the game" is not a valid answer to those questions.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
The ones who would be hurt by nerfing omnis are the DBB build players because they need the damage that current omnis do to make up for the loss in damage they have to accept to use DBBs instead of cannons up front.
And yes, at a basic level math does not lie, but to be useful that math has to model the situation correctly, and ignoring the effect of time-on-target does not produce a useful model in this case.
What the model your math is based on fails to take into account is that in forward-oriented builds the rear regular arrays never fire on approach and only fire after the DBBs slip out of arc, and then they are usually firing on intact shields unless you have a lot of drain skill and hose the target down with tachyon beam and tractor beam (which takes a space doff-slot to get that drain effect which canon-armed builds can use for something else) or are flying a very nimble escort (as in fully decked out for dogfighting Faeht-level of maneuverability) which can hairpin turn fast enough to catch the same shield the DBBs were chewing on.
And no, skill at maneuvering one's ship does not help, in fact it often makes this particular situation worse because the object of a forward-oriented build is to keep your nose guns pointed at the target, which means the tail guns rarely even fire unless you use FAW (or overrun the target like in the previous paragraph which of course means your main battery is no longer firing).
So instead of those DBBs being supported by close-to-normal-array level of damage from the rear they either get nothing from the rear if you mount arrays or very poor (and insufficient) turret-level support if the omnis get nerfed enough to make 8 omni builds practical (and no, just nerfing crafted beams would not help, it will have to be a massive nerf of both (and a corresponding buff to DBBs) to avoid problems).
As husanakx pointed out, with the high forward ratio of hardpoints that a lot of the more recent ships have, what need is there for more than two or three omnis besides a gee-wiz niche build anyway? The real problem is not the minor difference in damage between set and non-set omnis, it is the problem of having to break sets or substitute a turret or other inappropriate weapon because the current rules only allow ONE SET OMNI.
Assuming a 5/2 or 4/2 you would see people running 2 set omnis vs ever including a crafted one. Why would folks run crafted when they could run 2 set omnis such as say Trilithium omni and Inhibiting Phaser.
Overall it would lead to a DPS increase vs before, or worst case scenario it evens out. Keep in mind turrets do not have limitations on their set pieces to the degree omnis do.
I've already said a weapon that's not firing deals no damage and even a ground rifle can outdo it at that point. I've also said that if a beam array isn't firing it's doing no damage and the omni will outdo it. I've also said that if both are firing the omni will never outdo the array so what's your point? However that's not the issue I have with this segment of your argument.
And here is where your argument falls apart. If as you say I need to "keep in mind the effect of time on target" aka the effect of piloting, then you cannot say that maneuvering the ship doesn't matter. And if you're going to say maneuvering doesn't matter then you can't say I need to "keep in mind effect of time on target". Either piloting matters or it doesn't, there is no middle ground to that. You can't say in one instance it matters and in the other it doesn't, that's not how that works.
As long as omnis are set to autofire, they will always fire unless something shuts off your weapons. You do not always have to see the visuals for your weapons to fire. Also as I said before I assume people are competent enough to keep their ships on target most of the time. I find it funny that I was told before "why are you comparing to dual banks" and here people are now complaining about potentially hurting dual banks as reasons omnis should stay locked, even after previously saying they would be cool with crafted omnis being nerfed to unlock them. Some folks in here need to make up their minds.
First up, if you're doing a dual bank build, why are you mount arrays in the rear to start with? In that scenario that's not a problem with omnis or beam arrays, that's a problem of PEBCAK (problem exists between chair and keyboard). If you mount arrays but face forward so your arrays never fire instead of using omnis to back up your dual banks, that's on you, not the game. Set omnis already do 36% less damage than a dual bank as is. The crafted omnis also do around 25% less damage than dual banks without a nerf. I'm not going to complain if they wanted to buff dual banks but it's not needed. If only one item is the problem you don't nerf the entirety of the game, you nerf the one item.
As much as I hate to say it this is how I know some people in here don't know what they're talking about. If as he said crafted omnis have the same base damage as beam arrays, this means there is a 12%-22% difference between crafted omnis and set omnis. That's far from minor and something you will feel.
Also thank you for proving my point for me with regards to the bolded section and why omnis need to be unlocked. If turrets are not restricted in terms of set turrets, omnis shouldn't be restricted either. I find it hilarious people say they should be fairly equal, but are whining about how omnis need to stay restricted keeping turrets and omnis unequal. Which is it? do you want them to be equal or not?
As to whether it's niche to have 8 omnis or not is irrelevant to the fact people should be allowed to do it. The power creep argument is not valid in this instance. If folks don't like the idea of 8 omnis nothing is forcing them to run a build doing as such. If you think something would give better damage then run that higher damage. So long as that person is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, again I have to ask who is it hurting? Something no one in here has been able to give an answer to.
Also upon further consideration I have to ask. If having 8 omnis would be a "gee-wiz niche build" then by definition it wouldn't be widespread and only a handful of people would ever use them, thus further undercutting previous points about everyone suddenly going to 8 omnis. If it's going to be niche then by definition it's not going to be overpowered and spread everywhere. So what's the issue if it's just going to be niche?
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Technically, it is TWO rear weapons negatively effected because there are two omnis back there and both would have to be nerfed in order to negatively balance them compared to beam arrays to the point where a lot of people would not simply mount omnis wherever they would put beam arrays if there was no cap at all on the number of omnis allowed.
That was not the point of the line you quoted though, it was that the nerfing (and let's be realistic, it would be both types of omni, not just crafted, if anything was done at all) would also negatively effect the DBBS up front (or at least two of them in high-differential hardpoint arrangements anyway), if only indirectly, because they would not get enough support from the rear hardpoints if omnis were nerfed to turret-like damage levels without the DBBs being buffed to cannon-like levels of damage. Why do you think single cannons and DBBs are almost always the cheapest ship weapons to buy on the exchange? They need all the help they can get from the rear hardpoints.
Yes, you have said it, but your model doesn't take the disparity in time-on-target into account. Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions, like they were on a firing line shooting at fixed targets where each shot is guaranteed to be in arc, arrays will outperform omnis every time, but that perfect setup is rarely, if ever, seen in the combat scenarios.
Ok, looking back I see that got a bit tangled. I got called away after starting the third paragraph and but kept thinking about it in the back of my mind and when I got back I missed typing a bit of it so the contexts are a bit tangled. I had started to write something more or less like what I wrote above, that your mathematical model only works on a static firing line and instead segued into the middle of the array arc context.
Missing from that is where I would have started out saying that if omnis were nerfed to near cannon levels it would be a problem on the beam side of things since the closest thing that would be left to the current omni is the array, which brings in a big firing arc problem.
I admit that arc part probably has more than just a bit of baggage from chat discussions of the subject where someone tries to shout down everyone else with the irritating old "ya gotta git gud!" diversion, using the word "maneuver" as a proxy for the cliche. And the way things like this crop up in chat makes me suspect more players read the forums than let on).
What it boils down to though is that with DBBs there are not a lot of good options for rear hardpoint weapons, which means omnis for at least decent support, turrets which are far from optimal (both mechanics and style-wise), or other weapons which simply do not directly support a forward firing attack run at all. Nerfing omnis (both types remember) would make DBBs even more the poor cousin to multiple-mount cannons.
To try and get on the same page here, what you quoted in this block was just the example of why maneuver is not a magic cure-all for why nerfing omnis is not a good idea (and as I said, judging by the typical example of the beast such a nerf would inevitably fall on BOTH types of omni, not just crafted), which was (at least supposed to be) my assertion in the fragment you quoted just before this one. I am not certain why you split it off into a separate quote, I did do a paragraph break, but that was to make reading it easier than a big block of text and is a standard way to accomplish that.
Of course I don't recommend arrays in the rear with DBB builds as a general thing (though I have been forced to do that to some extent for set requirements or theme purposes occasionally, especially when trying to avoid turrets) even turrets would be better damage wise, though not enough to make up for the disadvantage DBBs have compared to multimount cannons forward and turrets in the rear since DBBs need near-array level of support from the rear weapons. No amount of "Get Gud!" nonsense about maneuver will improve the damage output of turrets to the level needed by the DBBs or get rear arrays to fire at the same target on the same shield facing at the same time as DBBs.
I have not addressed the semantic gymnastics you two were engaged in before this because I really don't think the details matter as much as the overall performance, which at least feels like it is about the same between the two types (what set omnis lose in base seems to be compensated for by set bonuses, especially overall since the bonuses usually help other weapons or abilities on the ship too). One important point about it that probably should be brought up though is that the devs apparently feel that omnis push the envelope so hard that they reduced the base damage (or whatever you want to call it) of the omni itself to (presumably) keep the set bonuses from breaking it.
With omni's being that close to arrays in damage, and the fact that the Galactica style turret build actually works (if rather lackluster), I suspect that an all-omni build would work well enough to catch on even if it is a gee-wiz "look ma! no main guns!" kind of stunt. Just nerfing crafted omnis to set omni base-damage level and lifting all other restrictions would most likely end up relegating arrays to the same doldrums as single cannons.
Unlocking to just two (or possibly three) omnis of any kind would not hurt (parses and anecdotes have proven that already where set omnis are concerned) and would help themed and set builds considerably while not obsoleting current builds. It would be a miracle if the nerf-and-totally-unrestrict route could do the same on both factors.
And yes, I think the restrictions should be loosened, mainly because of set-omni issues with beam boats, but I don't see a cap of say, three as long as that three are unrestricted as to subtype to be overly restrictive (even two of any kind would do better than the current situation though you really do need three for some set combinations).
The power creep in the game would probably also cover the difference between an all-array broadside build and an all-omni build, again indicating that arrays would most likely join single cannons in keeping the dodo's company in extinction if the cap was completely lifted unless the omnis were nerfed to near-turret levels (which in turn would probably mean DBBs join them on that beach as well, and they already have one foot on it as it is, judging by the market).
Being a silly gee-wiz build does not mean an 8 omni scheme couldn't go mainstream or semi-mainstream if it proved to be effective enough, especially since it would not require any skill at maneuvering beyond just keeping it in range, and it would allow concentrating on stuff like science dirty tricks more. If the devs didn't massively nerf all of the omni's that 8 omni build could even have a good shot at being the new meta.
First, this section of yours here is false as precedent has already been established for differences between omnis vs beam arrays and dual banks. All non-crafted omnis fall within a 15%-25% less damage than arrays and 36% less damage than dual banks. Crafted omnis are the only ones outside that window thus the only ones that need a potential nerf if power creep is a concern.
Far as the section in italics, that tells me what your argument is really about, and it has nothing to do with true balance but gatekeeping or attempting to gatekeep because you don't like the idea someone may be able to use a new type of non-meta build. And heaven forbid we give people that option. As I've asked plenty of times, so long as our hypothetical person running 8 omnis on their build is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, what business is it of yours what they used to get there? More on a similar section like this in a minute.
Irrelevant and arbitrary with no way to objectively define. All paper scenarios are hypothetical with no way to account for every single possible outcome. All you can do is figure out the ideal and try to get as close as you can to it. No one who is serious expects a perfect paper scenario to always happen. I'm not going to sit here and play "what if" with a billion difference scenarios until we come to the magic solution where arrays and dual banks lose to omnis because that would require us to be omniscient to see every possible outcome. You could say "but what if (thing) happened" and I could just as easily say "but what if (other thing) happened to nullify it" until we reach the heat death of the universe. If you think I am not considering something, you bear the burden of proof to present your argument and its evidences as you are the one making the assertion. I'm not going to read your mind and try to define your terms for you. You've said I'm not "taking into account disparity in time on target" yet never defined said disparity in any way or given us an example of what that would look like.
Even then the debate was regarding omni damage in relation to arrays and dual banks, which by default assumes both are firing and hitting the target. I'm fully aware that's an on paper perfect scenario and the actual numbers could be higher or lower on both accounts. However I'm not going to play a game of "what if" for eternity.
See above, if you expect me to account for "disparity in time on target" you need to define this so we have an objective standard to work with. Also as said above the debate was in regards to their damage, which by default assumes them firing and hitting a target. So far that's 0/2 in this response of you failing to define terms.
If your goal is as much damage as possible then you will only use dual bank builds on something that is 5/3, 4/3, 5/2, 4/2, or 5/1. Typically ships with those configurations are the only ones fast enough to make adequate use of dual banks. In which case if you're using one of the x/3 layouts your most common combo is, 1 crafted omni, 1 set omni, and the KCB. Sometimes in place of the KCB people will use a turret or torp as the two most common things. If one is using an x/2 layout, the most common will be a crafted omni and set omni. If you're running dual banks then you will not need more than those 2 omnis and the KCB, or 2 omnis and turret/torp.
So quite frankly I have to ask, what on earth are you even talking about here or trying to say? Because again respectfully that was completely incoherent. Far as nerfing both crafted omnis and set omnis, see above once more as to why that isn't necessary.
Since you didn't understand why I said what I did there I will explain it. Your two propositions were contradictory and oxymoronic. If you expect me to take into account "disparity in time on target" then by necessity you are expecting me to take into account a situation in which the pilot couldn't keep the ship on target, thus saying their piloting matters. Yet in the very next paragraph you said piloting doesn't matter. Those claims are contradictory and can't both be true. Either you want me to account for piloting somehow and thus need to define your new terms and how you expect me to do that. Or you don't want me to account for piloting and want to stick to the original debate. So which one is it?
For your second paragraph here, again relevance? No one has suggested putting arrays in the rear outside of broadside builds so what was the point in even bringing that up? Point still stands, if your goal is as much damage as possible, why are you putting weapons on the rear of your ship that you know will not be able to back your dual banks? Again that's not a problem with the game but a you problem. So again I must ask, what relevance is this to whether omnis should be unlocked or not?
My position has been the same from the start and hasn't changed. Far as to why they restricted omnis and keep them restricted today, you would need to ask them that question. Neither of us know with 100% certainty until one of them says it. This is why when I mentioned the reasons I was told years ago I prefaced with "take it with a grain of salt as I'm not sure how accurate it still is." We can only speculate as to why they do certain things. Ultimately I would caution against reading extra things into their actions that aren't stated. Just because I walk into a bakery and buy a cake doesn't automatically mean I'm buying it for someone's birthday. It could just be me liking cake and wanting one.
Though I should thank you for finally acknowledging in this paragraph that precedent already exists for the damage convention of set omnis and they've already had their damage balanced. Thus further undercutting your argument of them needing additional nerfs when they're not the problem. Either way precedent is established and only crafted omnis are the outliers in terms of their damage vs arrays and dual banks. So again only crafted omnis would need a nerf.
This is what I mean when I say your reply is filled with contradictory statements. If as you said previously an all omni build would be niche and a "gee wiz" build, then it's not going to be widespread and won't be obsoleting builds. On the opposite side of the coin if it did obsolete a bunch of builds and was widespread then it wouldn't be niche. So I must ask yet again, which one is it? Is it niche, or would it be widespread? Both can't be true at the same time.
Good thing game balance doesn't revolve around what sells/doesn't sell on the exchange. Otherwise by that logic anything selling for less than a lobi ship (around 250m-325m) would be considered garbage.
Also see again you do not need to nerf omnis to turret levels. cannons/turrets are not beams/omnis. The only thing turrets and omnis have in common is that they both have a 360 degree field of fire. Otherwise cannons and beams are completely different weapon types with completely different build philosophies behind them. Beams and cannons are different weapon types and should be treated as such.
On this point and your previous bit about unlocking only 2-3 omnis not hurting parses, I quite frankly don't care if it hurts/improves someone's parse in this case. What I care about is this. Let's say for example I want to run a polaron dual bank build on a 5/3 or 4/3 ship and wanted to call on the inhibiting polaron, chronometric polaron, and morphogenic polaron sets. The only way I can do this is if I'm running the morphogenic omni along with the chronometric and inhibiting turrets. In other words I either have to give up 2 of the sets or run 2 turrets. Yet if I wanted to run a polaron cannon build this isn't an issue and I can run all 3 sets. That is my issue is that I am arbitrarily restricted if I choose to go with beams vs going with cannons. That is ridiculous and THAT is my issue. It's a double standard and an arbitrary one.
These lines in italics when paired with the ones from earlier tell me that the resistance to unlocking omnis has nothing to do with actual balance, but that it might disrupt someone's precious meta. And as I said before, heaven forbid people be afforded another option that isn't meta or that might shake up the meta as is because someone considers it to "not require any skill".
Respectfully, if you're opposed to unlocking omnis because you don't like the idea of them potentially becoming meta (even though it wouldn't) then have the fortitude to say that and don't beat around the bush. There is no need to hide behind a bunch of contradictory arguments that I'm not even convinced you really believe yourself. No one is going to be forced to use 8 omnis, and you won't if you care about pure raw damage output.
As I said before it's ridiculous to me that if I wanted to stack up enough set turrets to run 8 set turrets I can do it, but if I wanted to do the same thing with omnis I'm told I can't do it. I HATE double standards like that because they serve no valid purpose. If the concern is power of the set bonuses you're not stopping me from getting those set bonuses, you're just making it more annoying. If the concern is crafted omnis being too strong then nerf them into line with the set omnis. I really don't understand the obsession some people have with making this more complicated than that or it has to be.
Lastly I will ask for a final time, aside from not liking the build, so long as said hypothetical player is pulling their weight and you're clearing content, why do you care if they choose to run 8 omnis where you don't? How are you personally hurt by it? Who is the victim here?
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Not a terrible idea at all. For that matter after the rename they could release a new 34% damage reduced non heavy variant.