Tactical Ship Selection
Thanks for your response! I'm glad we can all have this discussion here!
FAW does 3 things: 1) increase your rate of fire against your primary target on all your beam weapons from 4 shots per cycle to 5, 2) add 5 shots per cycle to additional, randomly chosen targets, and 3) increase the damage each shot does (when using FAW 2 and FAW 3).
A ship with FAW1 will increase its damage by 25% against its main target. That number goes up to 40% with FAW3. And then it doubles its damage by shooting at other targets, giving you 180% more damage total.
CRF gives cannons 50% more damage to a single target, FAW 40%. The point Aikune made was "cannons do more damage, hands down," and once you factor in all the other benefits that beams have (lower distance drop-off, wider arc, 4 times more overcapping power, you don't have to use beams with weak turrets, etc.), it's apparent that the reason the top damage builds in STO are all faw boats isn't just because they're whittling lots of enemies down.
Or to put it this way: in 30K and above channel runs where almost everyone is using beams and FAW, the boss fights (one target) usually last a matter of seconds. That crystal goes boom in under a minute. In the current state of the game, there is just no question that beams care capable of more damage than cannons.
I don't see this. In ISA, at the transmitters, there's a cube, a sphere, more spheres spawning, and 4 generators to knock out. So there's one target out of 6 to 10 that cannot take damage for the first part of the fight.
FAW does 50% of its damage to a chosen target. No one is choosing to target the transmitter before it can be damaged. Taking into account that the transmitter is un-damage-able for maybe 1/2 of the fight at the transmitters which are 2 of the 4 fighting areas total (everything can be damaged when you're at the gate or in that first part), then 1% to 2% of FAW's damage is to targets that can't take damage. Actually less than that, because FAW has 50% up-time and it doesn't fire the extra shots if only 1 target is present, like at the end with the tactical cube.
If you take off 2% of the damage from the top beam builds, they'll still be miles ahead of the top cannons builds. And those cannon builds are using CSV, which can also be getting some of its DPS from that transmitter before it can be damaged.
If the mission of choice were CSA, then this would be more of a problem. But ISA just has 3 targets, total, out of dozens that can't take damage for a limited amount of time (and everyone stays out of range of the gate when they're at a transmitter anyway). It's just not a big deal there.
And the point I'm making is that these synergies are either small, don't exist, or work in other ways.
For example, an escort is squishy, so isn't having Miracle Worker there more useful?
For another example, a science vessel has big shields, so Rotate Shield Frequency can benefit that type of ship more.
A cruiser has a thicker hull and more room for heals, do Go Down Fighting can be used longer on one of those.
A science vessel can pump out exotic damage, and that damage is buffed by Attack Pattern Alpha and Go Down Fighting more than anything science captains have.
DHCs drain more weapons power and access less overcapping power than beams do, so they could really use Nadeon Inversion.
Etc.
I responded to this earlier: Engineers get bonus power for 1/4 of the time if they're chaining EPS Power Transfer, less of the time if they're not using it constantly. That means that for more than 3/4 of the time they have the same power as anyone else.
Science vessels have as much base energy as cruisers do in each subsystem, so science captains will have to make the exact same choice about power allocation in both ships.
And if we're talking about power drain, the only captain ability that affects that is Nadeon Inversion and only for a fraction of the time. Tacs, scis, and engies (for a majority of the time) have the same problems with weapons power drain in any given ship and build.
The main problem I've seen with newer players' builds (in-channel, on Reddit, on the STO forums, etc.) is that they don't understand a lot of the mechanics of the game and why they should be doing the basics, like using weapons of the same energy type and slotting tactical consoles. Any T5 or T6 ship is perfectly capable of completing end-game content, even without the really expensive gear. The main problem is that the game doesn't explain its mechanics.
Focusing on the most expensive and shiniest part of a build (the ship itself) takes attention away from real problems in newer players' builds that won't be solved by buying a different ship.
For example, someone could have a Tac captain in a cruiser running 3 copies of CRF with beams and mixing energy types and not slotting any heals and using the default power settings (50/50/50/50). Telling them to get an escort a) doesn't solve the problem at all since all the same mistakes can be made in an escort, and b) takes a lot of resources and energy away from solving the real, pressing problems the player is having in the game.
If someone doesn't have time to develop an alt and they already have an engineering main they love but they really like escorts, then I think they should just go for it. Of course that's informed by the fact that I don't think these synergies are either monolithic or important, but it's also because having fun is really important.
Or, for one last example, a common synergy that lots of players refer to is "single-target is for PVP, AoE is for PVE." I think there's a lot of truth to that. But it's also true that you can do just fine with a single-target build in PVE and, if that's what floats your boat, then go for it.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and continuing this discussion! I was kinda hoping we could all talk shop here but then this discussion fizzled out.
Yes FAW leads to more DPS numbers when fighting groups but in reality this is just minor damage across lots of enemies which when all combined gives really nice DPS figures."
FAW does 3 things: 1) increase your rate of fire against your primary target on all your beam weapons from 4 shots per cycle to 5, 2) add 5 shots per cycle to additional, randomly chosen targets, and 3) increase the damage each shot does (when using FAW 2 and FAW 3).
A ship with FAW1 will increase its damage by 25% against its main target. That number goes up to 40% with FAW3. And then it doubles its damage by shooting at other targets, giving you 180% more damage total.
However, these build are incredibly effective i play cruisers with FAW and see them slowly whittle down the enemies at the same time. In an escort with cannons though i take out the enemy i choose in a few seconds on average.
CRF gives cannons 50% more damage to a single target, FAW 40%. The point Aikune made was "cannons do more damage, hands down," and once you factor in all the other benefits that beams have (lower distance drop-off, wider arc, 4 times more overcapping power, you don't have to use beams with weak turrets, etc.), it's apparent that the reason the top damage builds in STO are all faw boats isn't just because they're whittling lots of enemies down.
Or to put it this way: in 30K and above channel runs where almost everyone is using beams and FAW, the boss fights (one target) usually last a matter of seconds. That crystal goes boom in under a minute. In the current state of the game, there is just no question that beams care capable of more damage than cannons.
This is how i see the FAW meta that has developed in STO, at its most fundamental level it is alot of stat padding to get the highest numbers in ISA and then the logic on how to build ships is determined by this scenario.
I don't see this. In ISA, at the transmitters, there's a cube, a sphere, more spheres spawning, and 4 generators to knock out. So there's one target out of 6 to 10 that cannot take damage for the first part of the fight.
FAW does 50% of its damage to a chosen target. No one is choosing to target the transmitter before it can be damaged. Taking into account that the transmitter is un-damage-able for maybe 1/2 of the fight at the transmitters which are 2 of the 4 fighting areas total (everything can be damaged when you're at the gate or in that first part), then 1% to 2% of FAW's damage is to targets that can't take damage. Actually less than that, because FAW has 50% up-time and it doesn't fire the extra shots if only 1 target is present, like at the end with the tactical cube.
If you take off 2% of the damage from the top beam builds, they'll still be miles ahead of the top cannons builds. And those cannon builds are using CSV, which can also be getting some of its DPS from that transmitter before it can be damaged.
If the mission of choice were CSA, then this would be more of a problem. But ISA just has 3 targets, total, out of dozens that can't take damage for a limited amount of time (and everyone stays out of range of the gate when they're at a transmitter anyway). It's just not a big deal there.
Also fundamentally i think the point Aikune is making that in general the synergies when a captain flies the ship type that traditionally goes with that career makes life easier for players.
And the point I'm making is that these synergies are either small, don't exist, or work in other ways.
For example, an escort is squishy, so isn't having Miracle Worker there more useful?
For another example, a science vessel has big shields, so Rotate Shield Frequency can benefit that type of ship more.
A cruiser has a thicker hull and more room for heals, do Go Down Fighting can be used longer on one of those.
A science vessel can pump out exotic damage, and that damage is buffed by Attack Pattern Alpha and Go Down Fighting more than anything science captains have.
DHCs drain more weapons power and access less overcapping power than beams do, so they could really use Nadeon Inversion.
Etc.
A science captain who gets into a cruiser quite simply wont be as effective as an engineer, their power levels are likely to suffer or they are forced into the A2B route.
I responded to this earlier: Engineers get bonus power for 1/4 of the time if they're chaining EPS Power Transfer, less of the time if they're not using it constantly. That means that for more than 3/4 of the time they have the same power as anyone else.
Science vessels have as much base energy as cruisers do in each subsystem, so science captains will have to make the exact same choice about power allocation in both ships.
And if we're talking about power drain, the only captain ability that affects that is Nadeon Inversion and only for a fraction of the time. Tacs, scis, and engies (for a majority of the time) have the same problems with weapons power drain in any given ship and build.
The people who come here for advice are usually the less experienced players who and the advice is geared more towards that. When people are more familiar with the game and the mechanics it is much easier to make the decision to fly other types of ships, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your class and what it can bring to a ship. But if people are flying around in ships that doesnt necessarily synergise well early on and find themselves ineffectual they tend to quit the game early, myself and Aikune have seen that alot over the years and it is what posts like this are hoping to avoid.
The main problem I've seen with newer players' builds (in-channel, on Reddit, on the STO forums, etc.) is that they don't understand a lot of the mechanics of the game and why they should be doing the basics, like using weapons of the same energy type and slotting tactical consoles. Any T5 or T6 ship is perfectly capable of completing end-game content, even without the really expensive gear. The main problem is that the game doesn't explain its mechanics.
Focusing on the most expensive and shiniest part of a build (the ship itself) takes attention away from real problems in newer players' builds that won't be solved by buying a different ship.
For example, someone could have a Tac captain in a cruiser running 3 copies of CRF with beams and mixing energy types and not slotting any heals and using the default power settings (50/50/50/50). Telling them to get an escort a) doesn't solve the problem at all since all the same mistakes can be made in an escort, and b) takes a lot of resources and energy away from solving the real, pressing problems the player is having in the game.
If someone doesn't have time to develop an alt and they already have an engineering main they love but they really like escorts, then I think they should just go for it. Of course that's informed by the fact that I don't think these synergies are either monolithic or important, but it's also because having fun is really important.
Or, for one last example, a common synergy that lots of players refer to is "single-target is for PVP, AoE is for PVE." I think there's a lot of truth to that. But it's also true that you can do just fine with a single-target build in PVE and, if that's what floats your boat, then go for it.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and continuing this discussion! I was kinda hoping we could all talk shop here but then this discussion fizzled out.
