test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Tholian Recluse Vs Karfi!

iampulsariampulsar Member Posts: 0 Arc User
edited August 2012 in Klingon Discussion
Greetings,

I was hoping somone who runs a Tac Karfi and has a recluse could give me some advice on whether its worth purchasing or not.

I understand the main differences, but was hoping if somone could let me know if the recluse has any real PVP advantages over my beloved karfi, Sensor analysis, subsystem targeting, better shield hp, seems to be the only advantage...but only 6 weps, and 2 tac slots seems a little weak.

HELP!

Yours truly,

Moremoneythanbrains.
Post edited by iampulsar on

Comments

  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,921 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    iampulsar wrote: »
    Greetings,

    I was hoping somone who runs a Tac Karfi and has a recluse could give me some advice on whether its worth purchasing or not.

    I understand the main differences, but was hoping if somone could let me know if the recluse has any real PVP advantages over my beloved karfi, Sensor analysis, subsystem targeting, better shield hp, seems to be the only advantage...but only 6 weps, and 2 tac slots seems a little weak.

    HELP!

    Yours truly,

    Moremoneythanbrains.

    Not even the likes of the Vo'quv and Atrox have sensor analysis. A ship like the Recluse I imagine might be built better more as a tank...not really meant to bring a lot of pain with its own guns. Meant more to support its fighters/friends...especially when you take a look at that console it gets.
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCW7qxenWt4&feature=plcp

    LtCmdr Engineer and Science means you can be strong in survival and healing if you wish. And then there is still the uni Cmdr slot.

    Anywho's thats just a look at the ships basics maybe give you a better idea before shopping.
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCW7qxenWt4&feature=plcp

    LtCmdr Engineer and Science means you can be strong in survival and healing if you wish. And then there is still the uni Cmdr slot.

    Anywho's thats just a look at the ships basics maybe give you a better idea before shopping.

    Thanks again for this Thissler. Informative and enticing, just like I LIKE it baby!
  • shadowaxxshadowaxx Member Posts: 126 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Thanks for the thread.

    I was thinking the same question. I love the Kar'Fi as a Tac Captain. The Tholian carrier, while impressive in many ways, seems better suited for a Sci/Eng Captain.

    I do like the look of the Tholian carrier in the game. It's really sharp.

    I'm still inclined to keep the Kar'Fi and only consider the Tholian carrier for an alternate Science build. I feel the same way about the Orb Weaver, it's also a great science ship.
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    shadowaxx wrote: »
    Thanks for the thread.

    I was thinking the same question. I love the Kar'Fi as a Tac Captain. The Tholian carrier, while impressive in many ways, seems better suited for a Sci/Eng Captain.

    I do like the look of the Tholian carrier in the game. It's really sharp.

    I'm still inclined to keep the Kar'Fi and only consider the Tholian carrier for an alternate Science build. I feel the same way about the Orb Weaver, it's also a great science ship.



    I see what you did there.......
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,557 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCW7qxenWt4&feature=plcp

    LtCmdr Engineer and Science means you can be strong in survival and healing if you wish. And then there is still the uni Cmdr slot.

    Anywho's thats just a look at the ships basics maybe give you a better idea before shopping.

    Missed something on the bridge. The video didn't look up.

    It has major problems with the Borg set. The Deflector is about half the size of the entire ship.
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Okay you got me. My neck was sore.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2tdZo4_0nc&feature=plcp

    Here's a slightly better look at the bridge. But for those of you that don't actually have one, what you see on the floor is what you see two more times overhead. There is one large panel that looks like it may be some sort of port. Its rather large. And dark. And there you have it.
  • bawj4wsbawj4ws Member Posts: 102 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    shadowaxx wrote: »
    Thanks for the thread.

    I was thinking the same question. I love the Kar'Fi as a Tac Captain. The Tholian carrier, while impressive in many ways, seems better suited for a Sci/Eng Captain.

    I do like the look of the Tholian carrier in the game. It's really sharp.

    I'm still inclined to keep the Kar'Fi and only consider the Tholian carrier for an alternate Science build. I feel the same way about the Orb Weaver, it's also a great science ship.

    I don't own a Kar'fi, but I own the Recluse and my tac captain pilots it. Personally I don't have any issues getting moderate to high dps output in PVP. Not to mention some wicked heals. The Tetryon Grid console is an extremely useful offensive ability (like some kind of death blossom beam overload).

    Basically if you want to do some real damage with it then use it with a Tac. I think for Sci it would be really good at shield stripping, disables and support.
    Dork - I.K.S. WeeBugger
  • shadowaxxshadowaxx Member Posts: 126 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Does the Recluse benefit from a specific energy type in the tac console, such as tetryon?
  • shadowaxxshadowaxx Member Posts: 126 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    Okay you got me. My neck was sore.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2tdZo4_0nc&feature=plcp

    Here's a slightly better look at the bridge. But for those of you that don't actually have one, what you see on the floor is what you see two more times overhead. There is one large panel that looks like it may be some sort of port. Its rather large. And dark. And there you have it.

    Nice videos, thanks for posting!
  • mastergenera1mastergenera1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I thought i would put my 2 ECs in and say that i own 4/5 endgame carriers the only one i dont have is the akira.between the kar'fi and the recluse imo for my playstlye with sci/eng toons the recluse is better moreso with Eng than sci as eng capt skills are heals so i can put a tac in the uni slot,as one of my better options anyway
    The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
  • hitechgunshothitechgunshot Member Posts: 12 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    There's one thing, if you can afford it, that really makes it shine.

    Energy Web console from the Orb Weaver.

    Works in the Carrier. Working on a theoretical build for it using energy web now...

    Wish I had more info on the energy web though, can someone post its function? I know the basics, but as in slowing, damage etc.
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    There's one thing, if you can afford it, that really makes it shine.

    Energy Web console from the Orb Weaver.

    Works in the Carrier. Working on a theoretical build for it using energy web now...

    Wish I had more info on the energy web though, can someone post its function? I know the basics, but as in slowing, damage etc.

    http://www.stowiki.org/Console_-_Universal_-_Tholian_Web_Generator
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • webdeathwebdeath Member Posts: 1,570 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    A tactical in a Carrier isn't necessarely a good Idea.

    The Atrox definitely Not..

    The Vor'quv, has possibilities, but not necessarely a good Idea..

    The Recluse is also not really a good Idea..

    Why? Because of it's Turn rate. It's slightly better then the Vor'quv and the Atrox.. But it's not better then the Kar'fi's Turn rate. 5.5 is not better then 7.

    Also, even if you use the Universal Commander Bridge officer Slot for a Tactical officer, you can use it for.. what.. Beta 3, Delta 3, Omega 3, Cannon: Rapid Fire 3, or Cannon: Scatter Volley 3..

    What weapons would you use in the Recluse? DHC's, if you use those, is a Joke on a Carrier, even with it's SLIGHTLY improved turn rate compared to the Vor'quv, and the Atrox. Same goes for Dual Cannons. Single Cannons might be useful, but again the turn rate still in that Cannons are a no no area.

    And let's face it, with only 6 Weapon slots, Turrets aren't really good Idea either because their damage, on one ship alone isn't great.

    So that leaves Beams (Single/Dual) Mines, and/or Torpedoes.

    Honestly, Single beam arrays are the best idea on a Carrier. If your on the Federation side, this might give a similar option to the Vor'quv, but you lose the Commander slot from the Sci side. Which means you lose powers like FBP 3, Scramble 3, TBR 3, Viral 3, Tyken's 3, Gravity Well 3, and Energy Siphon 3.

    So that comes down to the following question.. Are you going to lose more in your build not only as a Tac, but by using the universal Command slot to try and get more DPS from the Carrier by using a Tac officer. Or would you be better served leaving it in the traditional position of Sci Commander?

    Just my Thoughts on this topic after testing the ship out on tribble a couple weeks ago.
    You think that your beta test was bad?
    Think about this:
    American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    webdeath wrote: »
    So that comes down to the following question.. Are you going to lose more in your build not only as a Tac, but by using the universal Command slot to try and get more DPS from the Carrier by using a Tac officer. Or would you be better served leaving it in the traditional position of Sci Commander?

    Definitely the Tac slot.

    APB3 sticks to your target, so it multiplies the damage of anything shooting at it, including you and your fighters (and any teammates). You'll all do 150% damage.

    Alternatively, 6x Turrets with CSV3 is actually much better DPS than using Beam arrays. It'll actually beat using APB3 as a pure damage multiplier (173.3%), but won't apply to the DPS of your fighters or teammates.

    Mk X Beam Array: 752.2 per shot (602 DPS)
    Mk X Turret: 338.6 per shot (451.5 DPS)
    Mk X Turret with CSV3: 587 per shot (782.6 DPS)

    Commander slot of TT1/APB1/[CSV2 or APB2]/CSV3 would probably be the most effective DPS you can get. (It's closer between CSV and APB at LtCom level so you have a choice here: CSV2 grants ~45% damage, but APB2 grants 40% and applies to fighters)

    The best DPS the Sci Commander has to offer is GW3 or PSW3, neither of which can bring THAT level of extra damage to the table (and PSW3 would be very hard to leverage with such a low turn rate).
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Somewhere this thread sort of got onto tactical captain vs science captain, and also tactical bridge officers and science bridge officers. And that would be okay except for the discussion quickly devolved into DPS knuckle dragging. More DPS is never the answer to any question outside of "How can I do more DPS?"


    Once its decided that you will be taking a ship into combat the proper questions to ask are "How do I win?" and "Will I be working on a team or alone?". Those are the two questions. This is very important.

    The answer to the first question isn't always "Make the enemy explode.". There are events in the game where you need only to slow your opponent down, or support an NPC, and you will win. If you are working with even one other person the two of you can optimize your ships to do more of whatever it is you're doing than the sum of your separate efforts.

    For PVP in particular DPS is likely the single weakest way to evaluate a ship's build. The only less useful way that I can think of off hand would be by using warp speed in sector space.

    First suggestion, stop saying DPS. It really does more harm then good. DPS is simply a convention that was agreed upon that allowed for some sort of comparison between otherwise different abilities. It is an extremely weak tool. Burst damage is an excellent tool to use in this game.

    Burst damage would be damage that is near instant in application as in Beam Overload, or over the course of seconds, as in Cannon Rapid Fire. Burst damage would NOT be the damage caused by Gravity Well. Or by Tractor Beam. Although both can be very damaging, that type of damage is better left in the damage over time category as it helps in overall understanding of Burst damage vs every other type of damage.

    Whenever you strive to destroy an opponent you can assume one of two things will happen. You will succeed or you will fail. If you succeed you are done doing damage. You can imagine what that does for your DPS. But you succeeded! If you fail your opponent will start to answer that damage by healing it. You will likely suffer a drop in DPS, but not quite as bad as you are still shooting away. Just all your damage is being answered by healing. Your damage done will go up, your DPS will go up, your stats may look all pro, but you may never ever score a kill.

    So how do we land damage on our opponents hull that they cannot answer? Really that's the question you are actually trying to find a solution to each time your goal is to destroy an enemy ship.

    The tactical answer is to overpower our opponents defenses with so much damage in such a short amount of time that it isn't possible inside of game mechanics to answer effectively.

    The science answer is to subvert our opponents defenses with so many different attacks upon them that they once again become unable to mount an effective answer to the incoming damage.

    The engineering answer is to win by attrition. You will do ten damage. They will heal nine. You will win.

    Tactical NEEDS a huge amount of burst damage to succeed as it is all they are using. Science and engineering ships are using other abilities that over time compound the pressure on the opponent to the point where the smaller burst capabilities of the science or engineering ships become sufficient to end the engagement.

    So stop thinking dps for pvp. The question is are you able to use your abilities to position your opponent so that he is vulnerable to the burst potential of your ship? If so great. And that holds true if you are teamed. If you accomplish that you win, if not oh well.
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    Somewhere this thread sort of got onto tactical captain vs science captain, and also tactical bridge officers and science bridge officers. And that would be okay except for the discussion quickly devolved into DPS knuckle dragging. More DPS is never the answer to any question outside of "How can I do more DPS?"

    Erm...

    Q: "How can I do more DPS?"
    A: "More DPS."

    ...?

    (I don't get it... though since I'm the one who posted the DPS numbers above, perhaps my Knuckle-dragging disposition is to blame?) :P

    Also, since the OP stated "only 6 weps, and 2 tac slots seems a little weak" we can safely assume they're talking from a standpoint of "More Damage is better"...
    First suggestion, stop saying DPS. It really does more harm then good. DPS is simply a convention that was agreed upon that allowed for some sort of comparison between otherwise different abilities. It is an extremely weak tool. Burst damage is an excellent tool to use in this game.

    I disagree.

    "DPS" is perfectly fine to use in this game. It's a convention for a reason - 'the amount of Damage that can be Done in a Second' is immediately understood and can easily be used to compare the myriad of different weapons and abilities in this game which cause damage. How else would you compare the damage inflicted by a Cannon firing with that same Cannon Firing under identical conditions, plus Cannon Rapid Fire? Or compare it with the damage done by that Cannon under different Energy Weapon drain levels? Let alone compare it with the damage done by an entirely different ability such as Photonic Shockwave.

    There are two "DPS" Conventions: The first is "Sustained DPS" - this basically translates to "attrition" damage, it's performed over a prolonged period of time; typically minutes. It can take a while to "build up" (example: Sensor Analysis) and therefore will be optimal versus things that don't try and dodge out of your firing arcs and have loads of hitpoints to whittle down. Most useful in PVE versus targets such as Borg Structures or Cubes.

    The second is "Burst DPS" - this translates to "spike" damage, it's performed over a very short period of time; typically a few seconds. The idea is to try to kill your target before they have time to respond, or at least before they can start to mount an effective defence (by dodging out of range, CC abilities, healing over time, etc). It's therefore the favoured option for games with fast-paced PVP where jerk reflexes are king. [Skills like APA, BO3, ET3 and RSP make PVP combat in STO quite spike orientated and fast paced, but I will refrain from further commenting on the phrase "jerk reflex"]
    So stop thinking dps for pvp.

    Engineering, Tactical and Science roles (not Captain job, but the different ship/build roles in a team situation) are certainly different, but I'd not downplay DPS as a Primary Concern for any of them. Whether that's Spike DPS ("Kill the enemy NOW!" Escorts?) or Sustained DPS ("Tank that you can't afford to ignore" Cruisers?).

    Once you get the basics of your build in place (I want to buff and heal my teammates, I want to annoy or CC the enemy, I want to be survivable, etc.) then DPS should be your next concern - certainly your team's achievable DPS (over whatever period of duration you fancy), if not your own.

    The classic example would be a team of tanks with insane levels of survivability but rubbish levels of damage output: they'll find it hard to ever score a kill, and the best they'll be able to achieve will be a stalemate. Likewise, a team of CC-ships with the ability to lockdown their enemies is very powerful, but might lack the damage output to finish those enemies off. However a team of "glass cannon" Full-Damage builds in theory could kill the enemy (but probably take a lot of losses doing so - encounters would get much shorter but more risky, so luck and reflexes would come into play very heavily here).

    I'm not advising a focus on Damage Output above everything else, but I don't think it should ever be dismissed entirely or treated as an annoyance.
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • ussultimatumussultimatum Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    iampulsar wrote: »
    but was hoping if somone could let me know if the recluse has any real PVP advantages over my beloved karfi, Sensor analysis, ...

    I don't believe the Recluse Carrier has Sensor Analysis.

    The Orb Weaver has Sensor Analysis.
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    There really aren't two DPS conventions. Its the weakest tool out there by far, you really can't get around it. Its a convention for one reason and one reason only. And I already stated it. It is sorta like you read my post, tried to restate it in someway, and missed.

    "The tactical answer is to overpower our opponents defenses with so much damage in such a short amount of time that it isn't possible inside of game mechanics to answer effectively.

    The science answer is to subvert our opponents defenses with so many different attacks upon them that they once again become unable to mount an effective answer to the incoming damage.

    The engineering answer is to win by attrition. You will do ten damage. They will heal nine. You will win.
    "

    There you go. Almost your entire post in 3 points.

    I've left out the bits where you say "dps is important but it isn't because its really spike or burst and its really in combination with other abilities to sorta kill your enemy if that's what you were really about in the first place."

    DPS is garbage and using that as a start point or as a endpoint is garbage. I never say ignore or dismiss dps. Read the post. Here's something someone posted. And I'm sure this will get a "well that's not what I meant". But here it is. Some dps numbers.

    Mk X Beam Array: 752.2 per shot (602 DPS)
    Mk X Turret: 338.6 per shot (451.5 DPS)
    Mk X Turret with CSV3: 587 per shot (782.6 DPS

    Okay great. Over what time frame would this be? How many seconds outside of CSV3 do we need to go before beams once again overtake turrets? What if I used FAW of any rank? would that change things? How about even ONE Beam Overload 3? Do you think one Beam Overload 3 hitting for 60k in one second over the course of a 3 second encounter wins?

    here you go, ill paste this over again too.

    "The question is are you able to use your abilities to position your opponent so that he is vulnerable to the burst potential of your ship?"

    And no i never go out in the sun, i have no friends, and i eat paste already so don't wish it on me.

    Happy flying go shoot something.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    i eat paste already

    Is it at least mint flavored. Mint flavoring is the best.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    thissler wrote: »
    There really aren't two DPS conventions.

    It is blatantly obvious that there is a difference between Sustained and Burst damage.
    If you cannot accept this, then I apologise for reality being wrong.
    Here's something someone posted. And I'm sure this will get a "well that's not what I meant". But here it is. Some dps numbers.

    Mk X Beam Array: 752.2 per shot (602 DPS)
    Mk X Turret: 338.6 per shot (451.5 DPS)
    Mk X Turret with CSV3: 587 per shot (782.6 DPS

    Okay great. Over what time frame would this be? How many seconds outside of CSV3 do we need to go before beams once again overtake turrets? What if I used FAW of any rank? would that change things? How about even ONE Beam Overload 3? Do you think one Beam Overload 3 hitting for 60k in one second over the course of a 3 second encounter wins?

    Now you're talking.

    Beam Array:
    4 shots over 4 secs, 1 sec recharge
    =3008.8 damage every 5 seconds

    Damage inflicted:
    After 5 seconds = 3008.8
    ...
    After 25 Seconds = 15044.0
    After 26 Seconds = 15796.2
    After 27 Seconds = 16548.4
    After 28 Seconds = 17300.6
    After 29 Seconds = 18052.8
    After 30 Seconds = 18052.8



    Standard Turret:
    4 shots over 2 secs, 1 sec recharge
    = 1354.4 damage every 3 seconds

    587 damage per shot when CSV3 is active.
    Raw CSV duration = 10 seconds.

    10 Second interval:
    0-1 [CSV3 activates] 587 damage*2
    1-2 587 damage*2
    2-3 No damage
    3-4 587 damage *2
    4-5 587 damage *2
    5-6 No damage
    6-7 587 damage *2
    7-8 587 damage *2
    8-9 No damage
    9-10 587 damage *2 [CSV3 wears off, but Turret's still firing]
    10-11 587 damage *2
    11-12 No damage
    [Turret recharged and no CSV: normal damage until CSV recharges]
    Total Damage inflicted in first 12 seconds = 9392

    Over next 3 seconds, standard firing sequence
    So at 15 second point, total damage inflicted = 9392+1354.4=10746.4
    ...
    After 24 Seconds: 14809.6
    After 25 Seconds: 15486.8
    After 26 Seconds: 16164.0
    After 27 Seconds: 16164.0
    After 30 Seconds: 17518.4


    Thus in theory it's not until the 27th Second that a single Beam would start to inch ahead again. And it's very easy to get the recharge time of this ability under 27 seconds - even the MACO 2-piece set bonus would accomplish this.

    In reality, multiple Turrets would do considerably more damage than multiple beams because of the lower Weapons Energy Drain. FAW and BO are not Commander level Tactical abilities, so a like-for-like comparison there, whilst potentially interesting, is irrelevant.
    "The question is are you able to use your abilities to position your opponent so that he is vulnerable to the burst potential of your ship?"

    I would hold that the real question is "what is the quickest way to take down this opponent in the time I have available to me, without dying myself?". That holds true for any combat situation in this game, in PVP or PVE.

    Usually the answer is that you buff up and then shoot it in the face.

    Positioning only comes into the scenario in rare situations: when two or more targets are healing/buffing each other, for example. In which case you stop the cross buffing, either by disabling one of the ships, or by forceably using your abilities to position it out of buff range. And then you buff up and shoot it in the face... ;)
    Happy flying go shoot something.

    Surely that counts as DPS...? :P

    Happy flying, and enjoy the paste: It's yummy. :)
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • tetonicatetonica Member Posts: 142 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    maelwy5 wrote: »
    In reality, multiple Turrets would do considerably more damage than multiple beams because of the lower Weapons Energy Drain. FAW and BO are not Commander level Tactical abilities, so a like-for-like comparison there, whilst potentially interesting, is irrelevant.

    Surely no less irrelevant than comparing unbuffed weapons to buffed ones. While the majority of your post may make sense, this omission to support your argument makes you lose all credibility.

    You may as well go on debating the dps difference between mk12 and mk1 at this point. It's fairly obvious to all of us that unbuffed weapons will do less dps than buffed ones.
    Lynis, Orion Engineer, main
    Rrezeth, Gorn Tactical, primary alt
    Nari, Orion Science, secondary alt
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    tetonica wrote: »
    Surely no less irrelevant than comparing unbuffed weapons to buffed ones. While the majority of your post may make sense, this omission to support your argument makes you lose all credibility.

    I claimed it was irrelevant because my original post was in relation to the Universal Commander ability slot being used for a Tactical BOFF (see many, many posts above).

    In that I claimed that "TT1/APB1/[CSV2 or APB2]/CSV3 would probably be the most effective DPS you can get."

    CSV3 is a commander level ability. The only thing that we can directly swap this out for which would Impact Beams would be APB3, not BO3 or FAW3. And depending on whether you're talking about PVE or PVP, APB3 might be very useful or might be totally useless.

    The reason why I recommended concentrating on CSV3 rather than CSV2 is because the damage buff granted scales differently for Turrets across Rank 3 and Rank 2 than it does for other cannons.


    BO3 is certainly useful and a good example of a "Burst" DPS ability, but relies heavilly on prebuffing and crit chance/severity to score big numbers. BFAW is less useful than it has previously been due to accuracy issues, and the nature of the shot targetting makes it somewhat unreliable as a damage buff when fighting more than one opponent.

    If you want to change things around, then it's certainly possible to estimate the average DPS over a given time period for 6x Beams using FAW3, as long as we make certain assumptions (versus one target only? target is always in the sideways "Broadside" arc? weapons energy regeneration rate? etc). Factoring in BO3 is trickier - do we assume you use a battery or eptw? At what point in the standard weapons firing sequence is it used (the drain will negatively impact other weapons fire until energy is regenerated)?
    You may as well go on debating the dps difference between mk12 and mk1 at this point. It's fairly obvious to all of us that unbuffed weapons will do less dps than buffed ones.

    Interesting point. If we accept the claim someone made above that "DPS is garbage" then mk1 weapons should be just as effective as mk12 weapons, never mind all this stuff about Beams and Turrets...
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • bawj4wsbawj4ws Member Posts: 102 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    this thread needs more cowbell
    Dork - I.K.S. WeeBugger
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited August 2012
    bawj4ws wrote: »
    this thread needs more cowbell

    "Moo" :D

    (/10char)
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
Sign In or Register to comment.