Topic: Why nerf the pulse phaser?

[ChamadaIV]

I know this is old news, but as we all can see in 1.01 patch readme, the pulse phasers get a downgrade in the areas of shield piercing and faster dispersement (meaning they lose their energy and impact damage over distance at a faster rate than before). See numbers 30 and 23 respectively on the readme.

Ok, in the interests of good game design and balance issues, this I can understand. But if you're gonna do this, Taldren, then at least give the pulse phasers a faster cycle time. If you've ever seen the USS Defiant in action on the Deep Space Nine series, you'll know exactly why this should be.

C.IV  

[SirWilliam]

I must respectfully take exception to your suggestion, Sir.  

As it is, the PP is basically a heavy weapon that recharges at nearly the rate of a standard phaser.  Add to this its damage and with even a 10% shield piercing chance per volley it is still quite the formidable weapon.

Of course I must admit I rarely play as a Smurf...  

If it meant getting the patch any sooner, though, I would gladly make the PP recharge as fast as a standard phaser and give it  50% shield piercing rate!
Sir William    

[Cmdr. Krotz]

The shield-piercing was toned down to be more in line with the polaron torpedo's shield piercing effectiveness (17% per 3.5 turns for the polaron, 10% every 2 turns, or 20% every 4 turns, for the pulse phaser); the pulse phaser also had significantly lower decay over a large part of its range, when compared to similar primary weapons, so it was probably figured it doesn't need shield piercing and a favorable ranged damage curve.  

[Vertigo]

There is a dilemma here.

You CAN'T make pulse phasers as powerful as they are on DS9.  If you do, you'll start seeing every federation ship carry them all the time.  And that doesn't fit Trek either.

Nerfing damage and increasing cycle time still leaves you with a weapon that is too powerful.  Actually, that makes it worse, because you would WANT smaller, faster shots if you have a piercing chance.

I don't see any way to make this work so that it fits canon and gameplay.  So gameplay wins, and it must be nerfed.
 

[Cruis.In]

i thought pulse phasers kinda bite...but really if u look at it hardly any other ships you see carry a pulse phaser beside someone flying a defiant. kind of a stigma.....i had one on my 360 arc on my akira. but imagine if it is given the enhancements you ask then people will load them on in numbers of 5 and 6...and with shield piercing it could be mean.

so pulse phasers have to stay as they are. they only suck because when you use them you mostly do so with the defiant and have only 2.

one option could be to make it a defiant only weapon, that way you know you are only against two of them, give them back all their perks...

its kind of silly other ships being able to mount pulse phasers.

[Darkness1]

I stuck pulse phasers on all the forward arcs of my Sov. and ate throu some borg  

[NBK Dekan]

Pulse Phasers are too overpowering and have a side effect of shield leackage, this is inappropriate for a primary weapon.

<IMHO>
ALL Shield leakage ability should be removed from the Pulse Phaser, or it should be moved to being a heavy weapon not a primary.  Feds shouldn't have it both ways, a Primariy with a side effect, plus the crushing power of Quantum Torpedos is too unbalancing in favor of the Feds.

So, in regards to the origional post, they haven't nerfed it enough, even in the patch(yet)!!!!
</IMHO>

[shadpwriath]

The big thing about the pluse phaser.

One: it pluse's which when hitting hull and not shield you hit more system hardpoints (Klingon disrupters do the same).

Two: with them takeing up 275 mass, if you do put on more then 1-2 your not going to get as much pounch if you put on more of other stuff.

Three: they use less energy to fire.

---------

Now fix's that would work but not lower it's potental and also keep it cannon.

One: make it's fireing arc smaller as when you see it shot in film it only fire's foreword in the direction of flight with a minor adjustment.

Two: make it only fitable on speacail hard points as it doesn't use the same mounting system as a phaser does....some of those phaser are track phaser (the newer ships which have a producton date after the Galexy class), older one's aren't on a track but a turret type.  !!!! Currently all hardpoints and weapons are made podualer(Like in Battle Tech/MechWarrier) !!!!

[Alexander1701]

  The reason that you only see pulse phasers on Defiants is that players tend to keep defiant until they can afford galaxy, in which case, they use phaser 12s, which are better.

Alexander  

[Blitzkrieg]

For the size of them, the damage, power and special effect of the pulse phaser I think its good weapon for close quater fighting right now. However as an experiment I tried refiting an Excelsior with Pulse Phasers all around the saucer section, whatever you do, dont try this at home! I honestly dont know if reducing the power of the pulse phaser will have any point to it, it will sort of make them useless for there mass and so no one will use them (possibly an over exageration).

I cant say making the feds a bit weaker is a bad idea, just maybe this isnt the right thing to do it with.

[jdmckinney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pulse phasers and Klingon disruptors get to-hit calculations per pulse/bolt, not by the whole volley. As such, they are excellent forward-arc weapons, where you can minimize your angular velocity against the target, and thus get a decent chance of all pulses hitting. They are not as good on side and rear arcs where you are more likely to be using them against a target with a higher AV. Because the Defiant mounts everything forward, it's flight tactics tend toward setting up those low-AV forward shots. Combined with torps, this means the pulse phaser need not load all that fast to be effective. With its shield-piercing chance, it is a superb crunch weapon, especially in combination with quantum torps. The forward-firing optimal configuration means it is probably not the best choice for a 360-degree hardpoint. It is a better idea to mount 2 (or more) of these in forward arcs and use fast-loading beam phasers on the side, rear, and 360 hardpoints.

I've seen plenty of Akiras mount forward pulses combined with a strong beam phaser in the 360 to form a very effective weapons suite with torps. The same goes for Nebulas, Galaxies, and Sovereigns. An Intrepid can also do this to some extent.

All this aside, the pulse phaser hasn't been nerfed, as far as I've seen. It is a knife-fight weapon, as it should be. Realistically (if we can ever say that about Trek), those pulses would degrade over distance and have even less chance of hitting. So, making it a shorter-range weapon fits the DS9 model (I never saw them fired at extreme range -- that's what the torps are for), provides a valid counter-tactic (sabre dancing at range), but maintains the weapon's usefulness. With the longest-ranged torps in the game, Feds can afford to do some sabre dancing, while also having that nasty close-up punch. I still question the shield-bypassing side-effect, since these are supposed to be anti-Borg weapons, and the Borg don't have shields, but I don't think Taldren's going to change that aspect.

Above all, this game should have options and advantages for each race. The Feds have the best options in the game in terms of ship choices, effective weapons, and good defensive systems. They also have the only ships (Excelsior and Nebula) with extreme supplies advantages to the point of being better than larger ships (more shuttles, mines, etc.). In the patch, I have not found pulse phaser-armed ships to be really at all less effective.

Of course, any time a feature is changed post-release, the cries of nerfing or boosting (magic *******) invariably will be heard. It just proves my point that the pulse phaser should have been tweaked prior to release, to avoid just such flame sessions, but so it goes ...

[Whiplash]

The way the Klingon disruptor pulses worked in SFC2 was just a special effect. There was only one to-hit roll. If it hit, then the pulses all hit. I can't remember if some of the pulses might miss to simulate the damage drrop-off at range. But there was only 1 calculation for hitting.

I doubt there is a hit calculation for each pulse. It would eat CPU cycles needlessly. Not many cycles, but what would be the real benefit?

W.
 

[Firestorm]

Quote:
The way the Klingon disruptor pulses worked in SFC2 was just a special effect. There was only one to-hit roll. If it hit, then the pulses all hit. I can't remember if some of the pulses might miss to simulate the damage drrop-off at range. But there was only 1 calculation for hitting.

I doubt there is a hit calculation for each pulse. It would eat CPU cycles needlessly. Not many cycles, but what would be the real benefit?

W.
 

I've seen in SFC3 Klingon disruptors, some appear to hit, and some appear to miss.   Are you still saying it is all or nothing???   I guess I am assuming if half the bolts in one volley appear to hit, that I did at least half the damage?!?!?!

[jdmckinney]

I'm pretty sure, based on what I've been told, that the pulses are not all-or-nothing. Whether that means each pulse is calculated individually, I'm not so sure.

Assuming this isn't one of the several "great mysteries" of the inner workings of SFC3, perhaps someone with evidence or direct knowledge of the code can say how they work.

[Firestorm]

Quote:
W's right.  It's all smoke and mirrors.  They either hit or miss.  Close only counts in Horse shoes and Hand Grenades (and Magic Photons of course)

Quote:

Quote:
The way the Klingon disruptor pulses worked in SFC2 was just a special effect. There was only one to-hit roll. If it hit, then the pulses all hit. I can't remember if some of the pulses might miss to simulate the damage drrop-off at range. But there was only 1 calculation for hitting.

I doubt there is a hit calculation for each pulse. It would eat CPU cycles needlessly. Not many cycles, but what would be the real benefit?

W.
 

I've seen in SFC3 Klingon disruptors, some appear to hit, and some appear to miss.   Are you still saying it is all or nothing???   I guess I am assuming if half the bolts in one volley appear to hit, that I did at least half the damage?!?!?!  

 

Then it ought to show that way.   Don't show me 2 of 4 bolts hitting the target, if I didn't actually do any damage.

[ChamadaIV]

I know this is old news, but as we all can see in 1.01 patch readme, the pulse phasers get a downgrade in the areas of shield piercing and faster dispersement (meaning they lose their energy and impact damage over distance at a faster rate than before). See numbers 30 and 23 respectively on the readme.

Ok, in the interests of good game design and balance issues, this I can understand. But if you're gonna do this, Taldren, then at least give the pulse phasers a faster cycle time. If you've ever seen the USS Defiant in action on the Deep Space Nine series, you'll know exactly why this should be.

C.IV  

[SirWilliam]

I must respectfully take exception to your suggestion, Sir.  

As it is, the PP is basically a heavy weapon that recharges at nearly the rate of a standard phaser.  Add to this its damage and with even a 10% shield piercing chance per volley it is still quite the formidable weapon.

Of course I must admit I rarely play as a Smurf...  

If it meant getting the patch any sooner, though, I would gladly make the PP recharge as fast as a standard phaser and give it  50% shield piercing rate!
Sir William    

[Cmdr. Krotz]

The shield-piercing was toned down to be more in line with the polaron torpedo's shield piercing effectiveness (17% per 3.5 turns for the polaron, 10% every 2 turns, or 20% every 4 turns, for the pulse phaser); the pulse phaser also had significantly lower decay over a large part of its range, when compared to similar primary weapons, so it was probably figured it doesn't need shield piercing and a favorable ranged damage curve.  

[Vertigo]

There is a dilemma here.

You CAN'T make pulse phasers as powerful as they are on DS9.  If you do, you'll start seeing every federation ship carry them all the time.  And that doesn't fit Trek either.

Nerfing damage and increasing cycle time still leaves you with a weapon that is too powerful.  Actually, that makes it worse, because you would WANT smaller, faster shots if you have a piercing chance.

I don't see any way to make this work so that it fits canon and gameplay.  So gameplay wins, and it must be nerfed.
 

[Cruis.In]

i thought pulse phasers kinda bite...but really if u look at it hardly any other ships you see carry a pulse phaser beside someone flying a defiant. kind of a stigma.....i had one on my 360 arc on my akira. but imagine if it is given the enhancements you ask then people will load them on in numbers of 5 and 6...and with shield piercing it could be mean.

so pulse phasers have to stay as they are. they only suck because when you use them you mostly do so with the defiant and have only 2.

one option could be to make it a defiant only weapon, that way you know you are only against two of them, give them back all their perks...

its kind of silly other ships being able to mount pulse phasers.