I have the Odyssey pack. I have heard that the Science Odyssey offers the best DPS potential of any of them, due to Sensor Analysis.
However, after a series of tests that I am still running in a few different scenarios (Starbase Defense, Cure Space Normal, Fed Mirror Event), it seems to be performing, in most cases, worse than the tactical Odyssey. In fact, it often comes in at about 400-1,000 lower DPS. Also, to keep SA working I can't switch targets to try to find better prey or help a comrade, or else I lose the built-up buff, so that's quite a disadvantage in and of itself. As such, I'd like to ask if there is anything in particular I should be doing to maximize this, other than "don't switch targets."
The BOff layout and equipment I'm using are mostly identical (I swapped around the consoles a little bit because of the new slot for science and lack of slot for tactical, which has a net result of one less tac console and one more armor console). I also rotate tactical team and EPtW1, so my weapon power should be slightly buffed and maxed most of the time, and I also use APB1 pretty often. I use the full Odyssey set.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, as I'd like to figure out if I really SHOULD ditch my tactical Odyssey in favor of the science version, especially since at least one source I trust told me the tac Ody generally does do better DPS-wise, although I thought I'd ask here as it seems that the sci Ody gets the favored position here.
Never changing target on something that takes forever to kill Sci Odyssey will out DPS the Tactical one.
In a practical situation with assists and target changing the Tactical one will win.
I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why. When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I have the Odyssey pack. I have heard that the Science Odyssey offers the best DPS potential of any of them, due to Sensor Analysis.
However, after a series of tests that I am still running in a few different scenarios (Starbase Defense, Cure Space Normal, Fed Mirror Event), it seems to be performing, in most cases, worse than the tactical Odyssey. In fact, it often comes in at about 400-1,000 lower DPS. Also, to keep SA working I can't switch targets to try to find better prey or help a comrade, or else I lose the built-up buff, so that's quite a disadvantage in and of itself. As such, I'd like to ask if there is anything in particular I should be doing to maximize this, other than "don't switch targets."
The BOff layout and equipment I'm using are mostly identical (I swapped around the consoles a little bit because of the new slot for science and lack of slot for tactical, which has a net result of one less tac console and one more armor console). I also rotate tactical team and EPtW1, so my weapon power should be slightly buffed and maxed most of the time, and I also use APB1 pretty often. I use the full Odyssey set.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, as I'd like to figure out if I really SHOULD ditch my tactical Odyssey in favor of the science version, especially since at least one source I trust told me the tac Ody generally does do better DPS-wise, although I thought I'd ask here as it seems that the sci Ody gets the favored position here.
I have the odyssey pack myself and I'm using the tactical one with all the odyssey set, I found that the tactical odyssey is more durable when adding the set it also is helpful when deploying the saurer section it make the tactical more stable to fly and more weapon and shield power for both, I just added modifly borg shield which help out alot to, so try and stack the odyssey pack set to which ever ship you use a you will see a better performance when you do. hope this was helpful.:)
Running in my sci (with my sci officer), one of the key things I've found helpful in the fleet space missions is to focus on the big things; other folks can deal with the small fry that die fast.
Also, if you can, GW on the big one, then swoop in for a plasma. Keep SA up and run a scan; maneuver as best you can. When GW wears down, tractor to keep them still for a little longer.
This also sets them up in a nice, big group for mass cannon and torp abilities. A good sci off and ody will lock targets in place.
Works well unless someone's a fool who repulses things away from your killzone.
in theory the sci can outdps the tac. in a PROTRACTED engagement, like the borg invasion command ship. in 90% of every other engagement, especially with a team, the fourth console is the deciding factor by far.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their replies thus far. It pretty much confirms my suspicions.
As such, I would like to pose the question - why is it, then, that Sensor Analysis is looked at as some uberpower? I remember many debates about the Science Odyssey having it, and a number of people stating that anyone who knows anything about how the game works would pick the Science Odyssey for just that reason. It baffles me because it seems that it's got the "market" for DPS nailed down to one specific situation. While it's great for wailing on a Borg command ship or the gates in KA, it doesn't seem to do all that much to tip the balance insurmountably, and definitely doesn't seem like enough to get everyone in arms over it like they were.
Can someone explain this to me please? I'm very curious as to whether there's something I'm missing.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their replies thus far. It pretty much confirms my suspicions.
As such, I would like to pose the question - why is it, then, that Sensor Analysis is looked at as some uberpower? I remember many debates about the Science Odyssey having it, and a number of people stating that anyone who knows anything about how the game works would pick the Science Odyssey for just that reason. It baffles me because it seems that it's got the "market" for DPS nailed down to one specific situation. While it's great for wailing on a Borg command ship or the gates in KA, it doesn't seem to do all that much to tip the balance insurmountably, and definitely doesn't seem like enough to get everyone in arms over it like they were.
Can someone explain this to me please? I'm very curious as to whether there's something I'm missing.
You might be looking in the wrong direction for that answer. A good group can blow up a gate or command ship before the Sci Ody breaks even with a Tac. It's really hard to come up with a situation in PvE that makes a difference.
It's simple, it's really only relevant in the only part of the game where you're shooting the same target for minutes: PvP.
Most ship and build recommendations are made by PvPers. Which is fine, since they actually know the limits and capabilities of their ships, and how to get the maximum out of it. And those recommendations have to be read in that context.
For PvE ... well, it if flies and the captain doesn't suck too bad, then any T5 does the job just fine.
The Sci Ody will out-DPS the Tac quite fast (it surpasses the extra Tac console at something like 3 or 4 stacks)... it's hard to say what's going on without seeing the parser logs. Can you export and post them?
On top of that, if you have any other powers (Sci powers, Torps for example) SA will buff those as well. (Side note, if I could have a Phaser Lance on my Sci Ody I think I would "pee my pants" as the meme goes.)
in theory the sci can outdps the tac. in a PROTRACTED engagement, like the borg invasion command ship. in 90% of every other engagement, especially with a team, the fourth console is the deciding factor by far.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their replies thus far. It pretty much confirms my suspicions.
As such, I would like to pose the question - why is it, then, that Sensor Analysis is looked at as some uberpower?
Because it is an uberpower.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you are getting the results you are getting.
On STFs the Sci Ody combat parsings I had were far out ahead of the Tac Ody.
This was using the exact same captain, the same gear, and the same BOFF powers (all I did was switch ships).
I could see, that if all you ever ran was the Mirror Event or other similar content with weak NPCs that practically explode when you TRIBBLE in their general direction that yes, 12s will not elapse before enemies are dead.
On any content where your enemy survives for 30s or more (i.e. any enemy that matters) the Sci Ody will pull ahead.
NOTE: All credit for the data points posted above belong to Maelwy5, who did all of the testing and analysis found therein. My own testing was performed in limited foundry maps, and a week's worth of ESTF logs.
The Sci Ody will out-DPS the Tac quite fast (it surpasses the extra Tac console at something like 3 or 4 stacks)... it's hard to say what's going on without seeing the parser logs. Can you export and post them?
Rats... Ulti got in before me :P
It's probably worth noting here though that I flew a Tac Ody for ages before I sat down and actually parsed the difference. It's hard to appreciate just how strong Sensor Analysis is whenever you're just comparing the buff values - you have to realise that the damage buff from Sensor Analysis acts upon your TOTAL damage (after skillpoint investment, consoles, buffs, etc) wheras the damage buff from another Tactical Console only acts upon your BASE damage.
But yeah.... leaving aside the Weapons Power issue (Tac Ody doesn't need to run EPTW to hit 125) basically if you're killing things or changing targets in less than 30 seconds, go for the Tac Ody. If not, go for the Sci.
The Sci Ody will out-DPS the Tac quite fast (it surpasses the extra Tac console at something like 3 or 4 stacks)... it's hard to say what's going on without seeing the parser logs. Can you export and post them?
Can you explain a bit about this process? I generally just stick it in Advanced Combat Tracker with the STO plug-in (for some reason some of the other log parsers stopped working on my system).
Do I need to run it through some program? Also, the logs get really, really big, really, really fast. Is there a preferred place/way to post them?
Can you explain a bit about this process? I generally just stick it in Advanced Combat Tracker with the STO plug-in (for some reason some of the other log parsers stopped working on my system)
Do I need to run it through some program? Also, the logs get really, really big, really, really fast. Is there a preferred place/way to post them?
I think the base log text files themselves should be sufficient.
I would probably do the following:
1) Create a google account specifically for your STO needs (always good to keep your personal/business/school accounts private).
2) Upload the document to google drive.
3) Come back and post a link to the uploaded document here.
Do you just have one massive log? Or did you separate and name them with something like "Tac Ody" "Sci Ody"?
I think the base log text files themselves should be sufficient.
I would probably do the following:
1) Create a google account specifically for your STO needs (always good to keep your personal/business/school accounts private).
2) Upload the document to google drive.
3) Come back and post a link to the uploaded document here.
Do you just have one massive log? Or did you separate and name them with something like "Tac Ody" "Sci Ody"?
I'm going to do a few runs with each, so I'll be labeling them specifically for that. My current runs I have a bunch of notes in a text file, so they're kind of mashed together and not so great for this.
I hope someone is still watching this thread, because I've been gathering a fairly beefy amount of data and hope to post it soon. Something like ten or eleven runs altogether.
From a cursory analysis it seems that the tactical cruiser does edge out the science cruiser. And for those who may have pointed out the power bonus on the tactical ship, it doesn't really matter all that much - I cycle EPtW1, and adjust the sliders to make sure it hits or nearly hits 125 weapons power when running the cycle, no matter what the ship is (I usually do this even for my non-Odysseys once I can spec into Starship Weapons Performance).
Anyway, just wanted to let people who may still be watching this thread (and I hope a few are) that I didn't vanish into the ether.
I hope someone is still watching this thread, because I've been gathering a fairly beefy amount of data and hope to post it soon. Something like ten or eleven runs altogether.
From a cursory analysis it seems that the tactical cruiser does edge out the science cruiser. And for those who may have pointed out the power bonus on the tactical ship, it doesn't really matter all that much - I cycle EPtW1, and adjust the sliders to make sure it hits or nearly hits 125 weapons power when running the cycle, no matter what the ship is (I usually do this even for my non-Odysseys once I can spec into Starship Weapons Performance).
Anyway, just wanted to let people who may still be watching this thread (and I hope a few are) that I didn't vanish into the ether.
There's a few of us with it still on our radar :P
On the "Power bonus" bit - it's not so much that both ships can't run EPTW, but that the Tac version doesn't need to in order to hit 125.
E.g. Typical Setup (Tac Ody) Lt Tac: TT1, FAW2 Lt Sci: HE1, TSS2 Com Engineer: EPTS1, Aux2Damp1 or RSP1 or ES1, EPTS3, Aux2SIF3 LtCom Universal: (Tac) TT1, TS2, APB2
Ensign Universal: (Tac) FAW1
So basically the Tac version gains 2 powers over the Sci without losing much performance (in this case, assuming you're "tanking" then probably FAW1 and RSP1... but Aux2Damp can be handy in certain cases).
If you're just taking EPTW anyway then yes, this will be irrelevant. But it lets you do some fun stuff... one of my favourite alternative combos for the Tac was basically the above, with a Universal Tac Ensign running TT1, and a Universal LtCom Sci running PH1, TBR1 and GW1. The Sci can technically pull it off, but needs to give up slots for a few Conn Officer DOFFs or else lose full Tac Team coverage (not a wise idea!) and won't have the capability to use Aux2Damp alongside that combo in order to better position itself for TBR.
I hope someone is still watching this thread, because I've been gathering a fairly beefy amount of data and hope to post it soon. Something like ten or eleven runs altogether.
From a cursory analysis it seems that the tactical cruiser does edge out the science cruiser. And for those who may have pointed out the power bonus on the tactical ship, it doesn't really matter all that much - I cycle EPtW1, and adjust the sliders to make sure it hits or nearly hits 125 weapons power when running the cycle, no matter what the ship is (I usually do this even for my non-Odysseys once I can spec into Starship Weapons Performance).
Anyway, just wanted to let people who may still be watching this thread (and I hope a few are) that I didn't vanish into the ether.
..........
hint: that data will be worthless.
Why?
Because all you've generated is data on how to deal a lot less damage than possible.
You don't use EPtW to get to 125 weapon power, you use it to buffer power drain BEYOND 125.
If your weapon power with EPtW up is 125 and you're using six beams, you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 75 (slightly more, but lets just go with this) power.
If your weapon power is 125 to start with and you use EPtW2 (~30 bonus weapon power), then you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 105 (slightly more, same as above) power.
Or: You're losing nearly 30% dps.
Means: You'll deal too little damage to actually tank vs. any decently build Escort -> welcome to useless-land.
More than 35% loss for an eight-beam setup, btw, and basically no gain over the six-beam version, while at max base power you'd see an increase.
People like the two of you are the reason we have those "Cruisers are useless" threads. You HAVE TO max out your dps, both to contribute towards group-dps AND to be able to generate enough threat to actually tank.
Gimp your damage, and all you do is be insignificant.
Oh, and if I wanted a tanky utility ship, I'd run with an actual science ship, not with a slow-TRIBBLE Ody. RSV and DSSV outperform it in that role, despite the lack of two weapon slots, as they allow for point-blank-broadside-circling at max defense bonus, and actually allow you to turn when needed to make use of those frontal-arc science powers.
The Ody is a BRICK! Used right, she can be a quite powerful and tanky brick, but ... from what I've seen so far in this game, the Ody seems to be the biggest and fattest noob-magnet there is.
(Disclaimer: 'not saying that ALL Ody captains are noobs, I'm sure there are a few good ones, even if good ones with a bad taste for ships - but MOST Odys I've seen ended up somewhere between use-impaired and totally useless.)
Oh, and if I wanted a tanky utility ship, I'd run with an actual science ship, not with a slow-TRIBBLE Ody. RSV and DSSV outperform it in that role, despite the lack of two weapon slots, as they allow for point-blank-broadside-circling at max defense bonus, and actually allow you to turn when needed to make use of those frontal-arc science powers.
You don't need "max" defense bonus to tank anything in this game's endgame PvE.
If you do, then I think it's time for you to re-evaluate your Cruiser set up - because to be honest there must be something wrong with it.
A well built Ody can literally sit right on top of NPCs and tank at point blank range. Most other cruisers can do this as well.
The builds that maelwy5 posted are not "tanky utility" ships - please look again. They stuff more Tac/Offense powers into an Ody than any other Fed Cruiser can realistically achieve.
*I say realistically, because the AC-R can use its Uni Lt for more Tac slots - it's not going to be easy to make that option work with no HE or TSS in your build however.
I'm sure there are a few good ones, even if good ones with a bad taste for ships
I think you're just raging to rage against what you see as a "noob" ship, when the Ody has more advantages than disadvantages in comparison to any other fed cruiser.
Tac heavy, Eng heavy or Sci heavy - the user can take their pick - it sets the standard for Fleet ships with 10 consoles and a better shield mod than any other Cstore Cruiser as well as more hull.
The only disadvantage it actually has is a base turn rate of 6 - which you can choose to mitigate with Saucer Separation or just ignore completely because in PvE a base turn rate of 6 doesn't affect you very much.
You don't need "max" defense bonus to tank anything in this game's endgame PvE.
If you do, then I think it's time for you to re-evaluate your Cruiser set up - because to be honest there must be something wrong with it.
A well built Ody can literally sit right on top of NPCs and tank at point blank range. Most other cruisers can do this as well.
Yup, you most certainly can sit on top of a target and point-blank-nuke it. Not arguing that you can't.
I'm arguing that you're better off not doing it, and instead use defense to prevent incoming damage, which allows you to exchange some of heals for offensive abilities.
That way you tank just as well, but deal a ****load more damage and threat.
It that's not important to you, then .... maybe it's you who shoud re-evaluate your whole concept of cruisers.
The builds that maelwy5 posted are not "tanky utility" ships - please look again. They stuff more Tac/Offense powers into an Ody than any other Fed Cruiser can realistically achieve.
*I say realistically, because the AC-R can use its Uni Lt for more Tac slots - it's not going to be easy to make that option work with no HE or TSS in your build however.
I think you're just raging to rage against what you see as a "noob" ship, when the Ody has more advantages than disadvantages in comparison to any other fed cruiser.
Tac heavy, Eng heavy or Sci heavy - the user can take their pick - it sets the standard for Fleet ships with 10 consoles and a better shield mod than any other Cstore Cruiser as well as more hull.
The only disadvantage it actually has is a base turn rate of 6 - which you can choose to mitigate with Saucer Separation or just ignore completely because in PvE a base turn rate of 6 doesn't affect you very much.
The reason I'm "raging" against the Ody is that I've seen far too many Odys that can't beat 2k dps on any encounter. Lots that won't even beat 1.5k. No matter how much points you invested in threat control, that's not even enough to hold aggro against a Cmdr-level ship that's build decently.
'Been there, stole aggro on enough of them, 'had to tank in raptors/destroyers/escorts because of it.
And I'm laughing every time my Fed Eng in her MAC, still using RA green Mk X equipment, ends up stealing aggro and tanking perfectly fine while all those over-priced bricks sit there and deal less damage than a shuttle.
No, I'm actually not "raging" against the Ody, I've seen a few (very few) good pilots, though all of them in PvP and not a single one in PvE. I'm "raging" against people(!) who think that spending 50$ on a ship is an I-WIN-Button, then end up with builds making them useless.
Not against the ship.
As stated above already, but I guess you missed that.
Edit:
Just as you missed that part of maelwy5's post, that was what my "tanky utility" comment was aimed at ...
If you're just taking EPTW anyway then yes, this will be irrelevant. But it lets you do some fun stuff... one of my favourite alternative combos for the Tac was basically the above, with a Universal Tac Ensign running TT1, and a Universal LtCom Sci running PH1, TBR1 and GW1. The Sci can technically pull it off, but needs to give up slots for a few Conn Officer DOFFs or else lose full Tac Team coverage (not a wise idea!) and won't have the capability to use Aux2Damp alongside that combo in order to better position itself for TBR.
People like the two of you are the reason we have those "Cruisers are useless" threads. You HAVE TO max out your dps, both to contribute towards group-dps AND to be able to generate enough threat to actually tank.
Gimp your damage, and all you do is be insignificant.
Umm... how should I begin to address this one?
Ok:
1. The two builds I posted contain 6 Tactical powers for the Tac Ody and 5 for the Sci Ody. You can shuffle the powers around a bit, but aren't going to find a workable Ody setup that has more DPS potential than that combination of BOFFs.
2. The only "utility" build I posted was an alternative combo for the Tac Ody, this was used to very good effect in 'keepaway' missions like CSE - it's capable of handling two Kang attack waves simultaneously, and both TBR and GW1 are actually pretty good for pulling hate from multiple targets. This is not the only workable alternative build I've used for an Odyssey.
3. That Weapons "Buffer power drain beyond 125" bit you mentioned as the basis for your argument?
(i) It only applies for beams.
(ii) The increase in DPS isn't nearly as noticable as it first appears, in fact, the extra DPS for every point over 125 drops off very sharply (and incidentally, the Tac Ody can hit 130 before you even start adding Weapons Power Consoles).
Threat Control acts as a damage impact multiplier. A Cruiser using a reasonable amount of DPS will pull aggro off a well-kitted-out Escort, assuming that Escort does not also have points invested into threat control.
You'll notice that there's quite a lot of debate in many of those threads linked between myself and ussultimatum: we're not just agreeing with each other for the sake of it here.
You do not NEED maximum possible defence, just as you do not NEED maximum possible Damage output. It's always helpful to try to push your DPS up once you've got the rest of your build sorted, but it shouldn't be the only thing you focus on.
Reasonable DPS and heavy investment into Threat Control is one half of making a decent Tank. Sufficient survivability and mobility are the other half. It's possible to cover both those halfs sufficiently and still have powerslots left over, especially on an Odyssey.
That's not to say there aren't some TRIBBLE-poor builds flying around out there (and I've met most of them in PUG STFs - Cruisers, Carriers and Escorts - the Ody is no exception!) but don't judge what's POSSIBLE by what you've seen someone manage to do (or more likely, by what you've seen them "not manage to do")
1. The two builds I posted contain 6 Tactical powers for the Tac Ody and 5 for the Sci Ody. You can shuffle the powers around a bit, but aren't going to find a workable Ody setup that has more DPS potential than that combination of BOFFs.
2. The only "utility" build I posted was an alternative combo for the Tac Ody, this was used to very good effect in 'keepaway' missions like CSE - it's capable of handling two Kang attack waves simultaneously, and both TBR and GW1 are actually pretty good for pulling hate from multiple targets. This is not the only workable alternative build I've used for an Odyssey.
3. That Weapons "Buffer power drain beyond 125" bit you mentioned as the basis for your argument?
(i) It only applies for beams.
(ii) The increase in DPS isn't nearly as noticable as it first appears, in fact, the extra DPS for every point over 125 drops off very sharply (and incidentally, the Tac Ody can hit 130 before you even start adding Weapons Power Consoles).
Threat Control acts as a damage impact multiplier. A Cruiser using a reasonable amount of DPS will pull aggro off a well-kitted-out Escort, assuming that Escort does not also have points invested into threat control.
You'll notice that there's quite a lot of debate in many of those threads linked between myself and ussultimatum: we're not just agreeing with each other for the sake of it here.
You do not NEED maximum possible defence, just as you do not NEED maximum possible Damage output. It's always helpful to try to push your DPS up once you've got the rest of your build sorted, but it shouldn't be the only thing you focus on.
Reasonable DPS and heavy investment into Threat Control is one half of making a decent Tank. Sufficient survivability and mobility are the other half. It's possible to cover both those halfs sufficiently and still have powerslots left over, especially on an Odyssey.
That's not to say there aren't some TRIBBLE-poor builds flying around out there (and I've met most of them in PUG STFs - Cruisers, Carriers and Escorts - the Ody is no exception!) but don't judge what's POSSIBLE by what you've seen someone manage to do (or more likely, by what you've seen them "not manage to do")
Let's start with the most important one you fail to understand:
PERMENANT Weapon Power, from settings, ship boni, consoles, skill ... is CAPPED at 125. No surprise your experiments didn't yield an increase. Because THAT is what you tested.
TEMPORARY Weapon Power, from batteries, EPtW, drain ..., WILL kick in as soon as drain would reduce Weapon Power below the cap.
There's a HUGE difference in how they are handled, and temporary increases cause MASSIVE increases in DPS.
Which is what you're losing out on.
The other thing I'm going to mention:
Yes, Threat Control works as a damage multiplier for threat, correct.
But! If you're dealing less than half the damage of someone else, you won't hold aggro - at least that's the limit I've found to be true. Max.
And if you're gimping your dps output, then any decent (DECENT) Escort will EASILY pull twice the dps of your gimp. Without even a single point in threat control, that's aggro on him.
And once that happens ... well, you've FAILED. You're now a low-dps boat with no purpose. 'Hope that we're talking slow-moving targets, so at least it won't run out of your firing arc.
(Or that the escort gets away, but that's still causing a massive loss for group dps, especially if people just blew their cooldowns.)
And, again, as you probably didn't read my reply to ussultimatum, which would have saved both of us a lot of typing ... While you don't NEED max defense, having it saves you having to bring more heals. Which can be replaced by EPtW for more threat and damage. Which is NEVER a bad idea.
Oh, and against a DECENT Escort/Raptor/BoP, you DO NEED all the dps you can generate. Especially with a Tac Captain in the Escort.
While PvE is easy enough that you can fail quite a bit and still succeed, there's really no need to ADVICE PEOPLE TO DO IT WRONG!
Let's start with the most important one you fail to understand:
PERMENANT Weapon Power, from settings, ship boni, consoles, skill ... is CAPPED at 125. No surprise your experiments didn't yield an increase. Because THAT is what you tested.
TEMPORARY Weapon Power, from batteries, EPtW, drain ..., WILL kick in as soon as drain would reduce Weapon Power below the cap.
There's a HUGE difference in how they are handled, and temporary increases cause MASSIVE increases in DPS.
Which is what you're losing out on.
The sentence highlighted proves that you didn't actually look at the spreadsheet in the post I linked.
Go take a look, then re-read what you just wrote.
(The sentences surrounding the one highlighted are in fact wrong. There is no difference in how power bonuses get treated depending on whether they're from temporary or permanent sources. All of them raise the "settle value" of your weapons power by the same amount. The only exception to this is Plasmonic Leech, since it works by adding a small amount of power every few seconds instead of a large amount all at once)
The other thing I'm going to mention:
Yes, Threat Control works as a damage multiplier for threat, correct.
But! If you're dealing less than half the damage of someone else, you won't hold aggro - at least that's the limit I've found to be true. Max.
And if you're gimping your dps output, then any decent (DECENT) Escort will EASILY pull twice the dps of your gimp. Without even a single point in threat control, that's aggro on him.
Where on earth are you pulling that "non-optimal DPS" = "50% of an Escorts DPS" from?
You're making up numbers.
"A decent cruiser will still deal 50-75% of an Escort's damage"
And frankly, as my primary Cruiser character also flies an Escort and has parsed many, many builds... I'd say that's lowballing it, at least in PVE where Huge levels of Spike Damage doesn't count for as much as high levels of Sustained Damage.
And, again, as you probably didn't read my reply to ussultimatum, which would have saved both of us a lot of typing ... While you don't NEED max defense, having it saves you having to bring more heals. Which can be replaced by EPtW for more threat and damage. Which is NEVER a bad idea.
I suspect you've gotten your game terminology confused here.
"Defense" is a single form of damage mitigation. It's achievable primarilly by moving faster (though a few other things, like the Elusive trait add to this) and it caps out at 24 impulse speed. And as was pointed out earlier: you don't need defence against any PVE enemy, when you can park in front of the baddest foes and shoot them to death at point-blank range using just EPTS and Hazard Emitters.
If you're referring to damage mitigation in general rather than defence, then you're correct. Taking less damage means you need less heals. But pray tell: on which build have I taken a heal in place of a damage mitigation ability? Or even in place of a Tactical Ability?
You're not actually arguing with anyone but yourself here.
Although: RE your "NEVER a bad idea" comment... did you consider shared cooldowns? For example, by your own logic: should a Cruiser take EPTW instead of EPTS? And no, the answer isn't that you can run two sets of both at once. Particularly if you're going for "maximum damage" - consider Aux2Bat.
Aux2Bat shares a cooldown with EPTX, but when you slot the right DOFFs, it grants a substantial cooldown buff every 30 seconds or so (to everything, including Tactical Powers). You could run Aux2Bat and EPTW3, theoretically, but it'd make your cruiser a total lightweight in terms of survivability.
..........
hint: that data will be worthless.
Why?
Because all you've generated is data on how to deal a lot less damage than possible.
You don't use EPtW to get to 125 weapon power, you use it to buffer power drain BEYOND 125.
If your weapon power with EPtW up is 125 and you're using six beams, you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 75 (slightly more, but lets just go with this) power.
If your weapon power is 125 to start with and you use EPtW2 (~30 bonus weapon power), then you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 105 (slightly more, same as above) power.
I was asked to provide the data, and I have gathered it as best as I can. Since I treated both ships similarly, it will likely help give some determination of just what it can do, though with these facts in mind I will likely run a few more missions to see how it turns out.
If that's the case then this fact needs to be publicized much more.
Almost every post I have ever seen insists that any power over 125 is power that is wasted. If it acts as a buffer, then it really isn't "wasted," so this assertion does not tell the entire story. But from reading those threads it seems to have slipped off into the aether, never to be seen or heard from again.
And attitudes like yours are why people don't post on the forums to ask things like why a rainbow cruiser is bad. There is a reason I am asking.
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data. And I've been letting that effect how I replied to you. That was wrong, and I, again, apologize.
The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly, with both beams and cannons, the results have been parsed both manually and using the current (and finally working) version of the ACT plugin, and the results matched.
If you look up the PvP forums, you'll see that people there make use of this quite regularily and with great success.
Problem being: this game has gone through a couple of incarnations in combat mechanics and skill changes already, and, like in so many other case where information gets outdated, people still believe the old versions and theories to be accurate and will just repeat them ad nauseam, with horrible harm to the people who listen and follow their advice.
Unfortunately, a very common issue in science, and less harmful but still annoying, in theorycrafting for games.
...
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point. There's so many mistakes you made, that I'd be typing for a week to list all of it, and I'm not going to do so.
You can ask another time, and maybe I'll try to explain, but for now I can't see any indication that you're able to see that you're wrong. No sense going any further with this.
'Doesn't mean I'm out of this thread if further questions arise, though my replies to your posts will be restricted to pointing out where you're giving horrible advice, not in spending any effort to explain to you why.
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data.
And where is your data to refute what Maelwy5 has put forward?
The answer is you have none.
Instead you'll hurl insults and hope other readers don't notice you have absolutely nothing to back up your argument except for CAPITAL LETTERS.
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point. There's so many mistakes you made, that I'd be typing for a week to list all of it, and I'm not going to do so.
You can ask another time, and maybe I'll try to explain...
Let me translate:
"I've run out of arguments, have nothing to back up what I'm saying so i will backpedal and fling insults in an attempt to discredit the other posters. Hopefully no one will notice I haven't put forward any data of my own because I don't have any data even 1/5th as complete as what Maelwy5 has put forward."
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data. And I've been letting that effect how I replied to you. That was wrong, and I, again, apologize.
The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly, with both beams and cannons, the results have been parsed both manually and using the current (and finally working) version of the ACT plugin, and the results matched.
If you look up the PvP forums, you'll see that people there make use of this quite regularily and with great success.
I kind of didn't want to blatantly point this out, because I don't like highlighting whenever other people are digging themselves into a deep pit... but if you're taking PVP board threads as your primary source of information, then you'll find one of two things:
(i) They're talking about an OLD system (in the past there has been a hard cap of 125, with no buffer. As well as a hard cap of 135) so please check the date on the thread.
(ii) They're talking about the current system - in which case the data they're using is likely primarily derived from the data on that very spreadsheet which I created and linked to above.
I'm certainly not the only one who has performed testing on this, and I certainly can't take credit for the theory... but at the time of posting my results pretty much confirmed what was already suspected by certain members of the STO community, and those results have been used since then to prove the point in many threads, both in and out of the PVP forums. You'll find that spreadsheet in particular linked all over the place.
I hope you can see that attempting to argue with the information I'm posting based upon the same information I'm posting is a bit... well...
For examples of the aforementioned results, and a full history of the Weapons cap interaction, I suggest you try searching for PVP board posts by dontdrunkimshoot, amongst many others. Heck, just google for over 125 weapons power and see what pops up. I guarantee you that you'll find several examples linking to my results, and no reasonable disagreements with it.
Bearing all that in mind, I'm still curious as to what "misinformation" you think we're spreading here... but I trust that other readers of this thread will be able to make up their own minds about it.
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point.
Almost every post I have ever seen insists that any power over 125 is power that is wasted. If it acts as a buffer, then it really isn't "wasted," so this assertion does not tell the entire story. But from reading those threads it seems to have slipped off into the aether, never to be seen or heard from again.
In an effort to get things straightened out a bit here:
I'm still interested in seeing your parses for the Sci Ody + Tac Ody.
I'm pretty sure that it'll come down to gameplay style (essentially: "do you spend less than 30 seconds before changing targets?"), the BOFF setup variations are more 'additional versatility' than anything else and actually tilt the scales slightly in favour of the Tac Ody.
Concerning the Weapons Cap, currently any power over 125 does not contribute to your firepower, but it does act as a buffer (for beams anyway). What that means is that excess weapons power will not make your shots fire at a level higher than 125, but when you're firing multiple weapons simultaneously your power levels will not dip down as drastically.
In terms of damage potential: if you're sitting at 125 without any additional power, your initial shot won't see any benefit, but later shots in your weapon cycle will. There's a severe dropoff in DPS-benefit-per-point-of-energy after about 135 as you can see from that old spreadsheet.
That 'severe dropoff after 135' bit is quite important - remember the MACO shield that everyone uses at endgame? It has a built-in passive power called "Power Conduit Link" which grants +2 energy whenever you get hit (and when tanking stuff, you're going to get hit a lot). This power bonus lasts for 15 seconds, and stacks up to five times... I think you can see where I'm going with this...
I kind of didn't want to blatantly point this out, because I don't like highlighting whenever other people are digging themselves into a deep pit... but if you're taking PVP board threads as your primary source of information, then you'll find one of two things:
(i) They're talking about an OLD system (in the past there has been a hard cap of 125, with no buffer. As well as a hard cap of 135) so please check the date on the thread.
(ii) They're talking about the current system - in which case the data they're using is likely primarily derived from the data on that very spreadsheet which I created and linked to above.
I'm certainly not the only one who has performed testing on this, and I certainly can't take credit for the theory... but at the time of posting my results pretty much confirmed what was already suspected by certain members of the STO community, and those results have been used since then to prove the point in many threads, both in and out of the PVP forums. You'll find that spreadsheet in particular linked all over the place.
I hope you can see that attempting to argue with the information I'm posting based upon the same information I'm posting is a bit... well...
For examples of the aforementioned results, and a full history of the Weapons cap interaction, I suggest you try searching for PVP board posts by dontdrunkimshoot, amongst many others. Heck, just google for over 125 weapons power and see what pops up. I guarantee you that you'll find several examples linking to my results, and no reasonable disagreements with it.
Bearing all that in mind, I'm still curious as to what "misinformation" you think we're spreading here... but I trust that other readers of this thread will be able to make up their own minds about it.
I most certainly agree.
Since I got some sleep and feel a bit less ragy than yesterday, I'll give this one more try:
No, I'm not "relying" on PvP threads. I'm using PvP and PvE threads to check for ideas, which I then test to see if they work, and how they do so. I'm doing these test by using combatlog parses, both manually and using the 1.1 plugin for ACT, which actually seems to work (at least the numbers match with the manually calculated ones, which was not the case for previous versions of the ACT plugin and is not the case for any other parser, at least it wasn't last time i checked).
And as mentioned above, I'm quite aware of the nature of changing combat mechanics.
My prefered target for sustained dps tests are the borg command ships in Red Alerts, though I'm also watching parses on all other content - easy to do with a second screen. While you inevitably have some variance due to changing group compositions and skill use (-> changing debuffs and debuff uptimes, inconsistencies in buff uptimes), this effect can be neutralized by running enough parses for a statistical analysis.
Which is also the reason I'm not ready to present numbers yet, as I'd need a couple hundred parses, not just the couple dozen I have now - but these couple dozen are consistent enough in the results that I'm fairly certain about the results already, and are matched by observations from those parses that don't qualify for statistical evaluation.
As for your test, you mixed quite a couple effects together there, most important being:
a) permenant weapon power vs temporary weapon power
b) a glitch that enables beams to use overcapped permenant weapon power (no clue if that one still exists or has been fixed, but it existed when you tested. personally I'm not interested in abusing bugs, so I won't bother with it anyway)
c) using EPS Power Transfer to simulate higher energy levels.
d) choice of target and scenario for the test.
a) is actually working, and intended to work, just as I described already - permenant power is capped at 125, as is (permenant power + temporary power - drain).
By not seperatin between temporary and permenant power and instead listing (permanent power + temporary power) as your scale, you're already invalidating your whole test.
b) this invalidates your 130 and 135 weapon power entries - all you've done with these is to validate a bug, and a bug that only effects beams.
c) EPS Power Transfer has two effects that impact your test:
- it provides a boost to temporary weapon power, that works just like EPtW or batteries,
- and it also provides a boost to power regeneration, basically a "power over time" effect, which impacts weapon power like a HoT impacts health. The longer you shoot with EPSPT up, the stronger this effect gets, and the total gain from it can be up to nearly 40 extra weapon power at the end of the duration, though it's really, really hard to measure excactly.
I'm pretty certain though that it counted at least for a two-digit increase in weapon power for your test.
Note that this power regeneration form EPSPT is distinct from power regenration from EPS, which is important to note since EPS power regeneration is not supposed to effect weapon drain regeneration (and as far as I can see from my test, really doesn't effect it anymore), while the regeneration from PSTPT DOES work against weapon drain.
d) Your target, it's too squishy. At least, if you wanted to test for sustained damage. At the start of a firing cycle, power levels fluctuate wildly, all through the first salvo and into the second. By that time though, your target already exploded.
You really need to shoot at something sturdy so that weapon cycles and power levels drop into a constant pattern.
The other big issue with your test conditions is that you did not test for using abilities. I understand you were trying to keep test conditions as clean as possible, but since you were using EPSPT this really, really backfired: using CRF or FAW speeds up your weapon cycles and thereby your drain cycles, which in combination with EPSPT yield a different (higher) benefit.
While that's not technically a problem with your test scenario, but with the conclusions you drew from it.
The total effect is that ... well, your test is indeed useless. Too many flaws, and the effects of those flaws multiply, for a huge number.
Make a clean test, using dual EPtW for near-constant uptime, use at least a Tac Cube as target, run the test with both cannons and beams, both with and without using FAW/CRF ... and you'll notice.
Yes, that takes more work. You'll have to filter out all periods where your target used mitigating abilities, all those periods where it caught debuffs from teammates actually trying to kill it instead of making scientific observations ... but that's really not that hard.
And, just to get back to the original topic: this mechanic of weapon power really makes a difference when discussing Ody/Bort-variants, since you'll have to make adjustments to the Sci's build ... or lose about another console's worth of dps, at minimum.
As for your test, you mixed quite a couple effects together there, most important being:
a) permenant weapon power vs temporary weapon power
b) a glitch that enables beams to use overcapped permenant weapon power (no clue if that one still exists or has been fixed, but it existed when you tested. personally I'm not interested in abusing bugs, so I won't bother with it anyway)
c) using EPS Power Transfer to simulate higher energy levels.
d) choice of target and scenario for the test.
(a) I'm still not sure where you're getting this from, quite frankly. The way weapons power mechanics work in the game is that there is a single pool of energy - "Weapons Power" which can be at varying levels but is "hard capped" at zero and 125. The way the cap works is that extra energy over a certain value (currently 125 - it has been 135 in the past) is recorded, but not actually used in the damage calculations.
It doesn't matter what sources you use to raise this energy level. It could be Skillpoint investment into Warp Core Performance, or Efficient BOFFs, or EPTW, or Batteries, or Energy Siphon. The game knows no difference between the sources, it just knows it has X energy available to use at any given time. For the duration of any given buff period, weapons power is added to the pool, then when the buff expires it is subtracted again.
If it DID work the way you're suggesting, then you would see a difference in firing when under the effects of a weapons battery (try it: get to a high weapons value - say 135, then lower your weapons power to 60 and use a [+75] battery to get to the same level. If at these points you fire two beams simultaneously, you'll see the same results to your weapons energy readout in both cases. There IS a difference in DPS when you use EPTW, but this is due to the extra weapons skillpoint bonus from EPTW, not the Weapons Energy it grants being "temporary")
(b) Is the entire point of the test.
Beams use overcapped weapons energy to buffer/offset the energy reserved during weapons cycles. This is only in effect when you would otherwise dip below 125 weapons power. Beams do not get more damaging when you go over the cap (a beam fired at 130 weapons energy will not grant more damage than at 125) - the "hard cap" is still at 125.
(c) Use of EPS was neccessary to simulate higher energy levels because the ship I used could not go above 135 natively. EPTW was not used because the Energy Weapons skillpoint bonus would have skewed the results. Weapons Batteries were not used beacuase the effects were of too short a duration to cover the cycle period.
EPS grants a power recovery bonus, but this does not impact on your weapons firing cycle in the slightest - it's exactly the same mechanic as when you use an EPS Engineering console, known as a buff to your "Power Transfer Rate".
In the past (many seasons ago) EPS recovery DID impact your DPS - you couldn't fire more than a few weapons at a time before you started to run out of weapons energy, and everyone needed to run multiple EPS consoles. However this is no longer the case. For the past several seasons EPS Consoles have done nothing for weapons power recovery - they simply shorten the time it takes to move from one power setting to another.
From here - "As a result of this change to the energy drain mechanic, the EPS Flow Regulator Station Mods, will no longer have an effect on DPS. They will continue to function to improve power transfer rates between different systems."
It changed because the mechanic behind weapons fire changed:
Whenever you fire more than one energy weapon simultaneously, previously the energy was simply consumed. Currently, instead of being consumed it is "reserved" - a block of energy from your available pool is set aside temporarilly. Whilst it is being reserved, this energy is basically in limbo until it is released again (which takes place at the end of the weapons firing cycle).
So currently whenever you broadside something with beams, what happens is that each beam over the first one reserves weapons energy - this is listed in the UI as 10 energy each, so you can expect your weapons power to dip to by around 60 points when firing seven beams (there are slight variations due to rounding). The bug currently in place is that whenever beams reserve this weapons power they are ignoring the cap. They take their reserve from the UNCAPPED weapons power value. So if you have a "buffer" over 125 power, instead of your weapons energy always dropping to 65 during a broadside, it'll drop a bit less.
After the beams fire, they release their energy again and you'll rise back to normal levels (125). This is as a result of the energy being released, not a result of it being regenerated via Power Transfer Bonuses.
The only time power transfer bonuses come into consideration is after a Beam overload, which REMOVES energy rather than reserving it.
d) Your target, it's too squishy. At least, if you wanted to test for sustained damage. At the start of a firing cycle, power levels fluctuate wildly, all through the first salvo and into the second. By that time though, your target already exploded.
You really need to shoot at something sturdy so that weapon cycles and power levels drop into a constant pattern.
My target didn't die once during the test. If you read the main tab of the spreadsheet, you'll see stated quite clearly at the bottom that my target was a ship piloted by a second account.
This ship used no resistance buffs at all over the course of the test period, but to eliminate any passive buffs, I used the bracketed (pre resistance) values staken straight from the raw in-game combat logs, all the data from which which you can see dumped onto the other tabs of the sheet.
The other big issue with your test conditions is that you did not test for using abilities. I understand you were trying to keep test conditions as clean as possible, but since you were using EPSPT this really, really backfired: using CRF or FAW speeds up your weapon cycles and thereby your drain cycles, which in combination with EPSPT yield a different (higher) benefit.
Abilities would skew the results in various ways and be unhelpful towards establishing a clean pattern. Although I have tested and quantified their effects elsewhere.
The purpose of the Weapons Energy test as stated in the thread linked was to investigate whether there was any effect on Beam weapon cycles whenever your ship has a weapons energy level of higher than 125.
The test proved that this "buffer" effect DID exist, and quantified the DPS benefit from energy levels of 115 through to 164. This coverage was sufficiently wide enough to enable me to establish an observable pattern, and it became superfluous to do any further testing.
Because that's EXCACTLY what it's doing:
Set Permenant Energy to 125, pop EPtW and fire Three beams and Weapon Power stays constant at 125.
Set Permenant Energy to 125 pop a Weapon battery, and fire Broadsides ... and Weapon Power stays constant at 125 for 10 seconds.
Set Permanent Energy to 125, pop EPtW and fire Broadsides ... and Energy will to dip excactly the EPtW increase higher than without EPtW.
At least in the version of the game that I'm playing right now that IS how it works.
On ALL my ships.
What's going on here, please? Are we playing different games ... or are you the biggest troll ever? Or worse?
Seriously, this is just hilarious, go test yourself!
Comments
In a practical situation with assists and target changing the Tactical one will win.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I have the odyssey pack myself and I'm using the tactical one with all the odyssey set, I found that the tactical odyssey is more durable when adding the set it also is helpful when deploying the saurer section it make the tactical more stable to fly and more weapon and shield power for both, I just added modifly borg shield which help out alot to, so try and stack the odyssey pack set to which ever ship you use a you will see a better performance when you do. hope this was helpful.:)
Zab Judah:D
Also, if you can, GW on the big one, then swoop in for a plasma. Keep SA up and run a scan; maneuver as best you can. When GW wears down, tractor to keep them still for a little longer.
This also sets them up in a nice, big group for mass cannon and torp abilities. A good sci off and ody will lock targets in place.
Works well unless someone's a fool who repulses things away from your killzone.
As such, I would like to pose the question - why is it, then, that Sensor Analysis is looked at as some uberpower? I remember many debates about the Science Odyssey having it, and a number of people stating that anyone who knows anything about how the game works would pick the Science Odyssey for just that reason. It baffles me because it seems that it's got the "market" for DPS nailed down to one specific situation. While it's great for wailing on a Borg command ship or the gates in KA, it doesn't seem to do all that much to tip the balance insurmountably, and definitely doesn't seem like enough to get everyone in arms over it like they were.
Can someone explain this to me please? I'm very curious as to whether there's something I'm missing.
You might be looking in the wrong direction for that answer. A good group can blow up a gate or command ship before the Sci Ody breaks even with a Tac. It's really hard to come up with a situation in PvE that makes a difference.
It's simple, it's really only relevant in the only part of the game where you're shooting the same target for minutes: PvP.
Most ship and build recommendations are made by PvPers. Which is fine, since they actually know the limits and capabilities of their ships, and how to get the maximum out of it. And those recommendations have to be read in that context.
For PvE ... well, it if flies and the captain doesn't suck too bad, then any T5 does the job just fine.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
12s is all it takes for the Sci Ody to be within reach of 99.4% of the Tac Ody's extra console.
At the 30s mark on any single target the Sci ody will have caught up to the Tac Ody.
On top of that, if you have any other powers (Sci powers, Torps for example) SA will buff those as well. (Side note, if I could have a Phaser Lance on my Sci Ody I think I would "pee my pants" as the meme goes.)
1) The Tac Ody only has 3 Tac Consoles, not 4.
2) It's not a theory.
Because it is an uberpower.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you are getting the results you are getting.
On STFs the Sci Ody combat parsings I had were far out ahead of the Tac Ody.
This was using the exact same captain, the same gear, and the same BOFF powers (all I did was switch ships).
I could see, that if all you ever ran was the Mirror Event or other similar content with weak NPCs that practically explode when you TRIBBLE in their general direction that yes, 12s will not elapse before enemies are dead.
On any content where your enemy survives for 30s or more (i.e. any enemy that matters) the Sci Ody will pull ahead.
NOTE: All credit for the data points posted above belong to Maelwy5, who did all of the testing and analysis found therein. My own testing was performed in limited foundry maps, and a week's worth of ESTF logs.
Rats... Ulti got in before me :P
It's probably worth noting here though that I flew a Tac Ody for ages before I sat down and actually parsed the difference. It's hard to appreciate just how strong Sensor Analysis is whenever you're just comparing the buff values - you have to realise that the damage buff from Sensor Analysis acts upon your TOTAL damage (after skillpoint investment, consoles, buffs, etc) wheras the damage buff from another Tactical Console only acts upon your BASE damage.
But yeah.... leaving aside the Weapons Power issue (Tac Ody doesn't need to run EPTW to hit 125) basically if you're killing things or changing targets in less than 30 seconds, go for the Tac Ody. If not, go for the Sci.
Can you explain a bit about this process? I generally just stick it in Advanced Combat Tracker with the STO plug-in (for some reason some of the other log parsers stopped working on my system).
Do I need to run it through some program? Also, the logs get really, really big, really, really fast. Is there a preferred place/way to post them?
I think the base log text files themselves should be sufficient.
I would probably do the following:
1) Create a google account specifically for your STO needs (always good to keep your personal/business/school accounts private).
2) Upload the document to google drive.
3) Come back and post a link to the uploaded document here.
Do you just have one massive log? Or did you separate and name them with something like "Tac Ody" "Sci Ody"?
I'm going to do a few runs with each, so I'll be labeling them specifically for that. My current runs I have a bunch of notes in a text file, so they're kind of mashed together and not so great for this.
I hope someone is still watching this thread, because I've been gathering a fairly beefy amount of data and hope to post it soon. Something like ten or eleven runs altogether.
From a cursory analysis it seems that the tactical cruiser does edge out the science cruiser. And for those who may have pointed out the power bonus on the tactical ship, it doesn't really matter all that much - I cycle EPtW1, and adjust the sliders to make sure it hits or nearly hits 125 weapons power when running the cycle, no matter what the ship is (I usually do this even for my non-Odysseys once I can spec into Starship Weapons Performance).
Anyway, just wanted to let people who may still be watching this thread (and I hope a few are) that I didn't vanish into the ether.
There's a few of us with it still on our radar :P
On the "Power bonus" bit - it's not so much that both ships can't run EPTW, but that the Tac version doesn't need to in order to hit 125.
E.g. Typical Setup (Tac Ody)
Lt Tac: TT1, FAW2
Lt Sci: HE1, TSS2
Com Engineer: EPTS1, Aux2Damp1 or RSP1 or ES1, EPTS3, Aux2SIF3
LtCom Universal: (Tac) TT1, TS2, APB2
Ensign Universal: (Tac) FAW1
Typical Setup (Sci Ody)
Lt Tac: TT1, FAW2
Lt Sci: HE1, TSS2
Com Engineer: EPTW1, EPTS2, EPTS3, Aux2SIF3
LtCom Universal: (Tac) TT1, TS2, APB2
Ensign Universal: (Eng) EPTW1
So basically the Tac version gains 2 powers over the Sci without losing much performance (in this case, assuming you're "tanking" then probably FAW1 and RSP1... but Aux2Damp can be handy in certain cases).
If you're just taking EPTW anyway then yes, this will be irrelevant. But it lets you do some fun stuff... one of my favourite alternative combos for the Tac was basically the above, with a Universal Tac Ensign running TT1, and a Universal LtCom Sci running PH1, TBR1 and GW1. The Sci can technically pull it off, but needs to give up slots for a few Conn Officer DOFFs or else lose full Tac Team coverage (not a wise idea!) and won't have the capability to use Aux2Damp alongside that combo in order to better position itself for TBR.
..........
hint: that data will be worthless.
Why?
Because all you've generated is data on how to deal a lot less damage than possible.
You don't use EPtW to get to 125 weapon power, you use it to buffer power drain BEYOND 125.
If your weapon power with EPtW up is 125 and you're using six beams, you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 75 (slightly more, but lets just go with this) power.
If your weapon power is 125 to start with and you use EPtW2 (~30 bonus weapon power), then you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 105 (slightly more, same as above) power.
Or: You're losing nearly 30% dps.
Means: You'll deal too little damage to actually tank vs. any decently build Escort -> welcome to useless-land.
More than 35% loss for an eight-beam setup, btw, and basically no gain over the six-beam version, while at max base power you'd see an increase.
You're doing it WRONG!
Build based on flawed idea is ... flawed.
People like the two of you are the reason we have those "Cruisers are useless" threads. You HAVE TO max out your dps, both to contribute towards group-dps AND to be able to generate enough threat to actually tank.
Gimp your damage, and all you do is be insignificant.
Oh, and if I wanted a tanky utility ship, I'd run with an actual science ship, not with a slow-TRIBBLE Ody. RSV and DSSV outperform it in that role, despite the lack of two weapon slots, as they allow for point-blank-broadside-circling at max defense bonus, and actually allow you to turn when needed to make use of those frontal-arc science powers.
The Ody is a BRICK! Used right, she can be a quite powerful and tanky brick, but ... from what I've seen so far in this game, the Ody seems to be the biggest and fattest noob-magnet there is.
(Disclaimer: 'not saying that ALL Ody captains are noobs, I'm sure there are a few good ones, even if good ones with a bad taste for ships - but MOST Odys I've seen ended up somewhere between use-impaired and totally useless.)
You don't need "max" defense bonus to tank anything in this game's endgame PvE.
If you do, then I think it's time for you to re-evaluate your Cruiser set up - because to be honest there must be something wrong with it.
A well built Ody can literally sit right on top of NPCs and tank at point blank range. Most other cruisers can do this as well.
The builds that maelwy5 posted are not "tanky utility" ships - please look again. They stuff more Tac/Offense powers into an Ody than any other Fed Cruiser can realistically achieve.
*I say realistically, because the AC-R can use its Uni Lt for more Tac slots - it's not going to be easy to make that option work with no HE or TSS in your build however.
I think you're just raging to rage against what you see as a "noob" ship, when the Ody has more advantages than disadvantages in comparison to any other fed cruiser.
Tac heavy, Eng heavy or Sci heavy - the user can take their pick - it sets the standard for Fleet ships with 10 consoles and a better shield mod than any other Cstore Cruiser as well as more hull.
The only disadvantage it actually has is a base turn rate of 6 - which you can choose to mitigate with Saucer Separation or just ignore completely because in PvE a base turn rate of 6 doesn't affect you very much.
Yup, you most certainly can sit on top of a target and point-blank-nuke it. Not arguing that you can't.
I'm arguing that you're better off not doing it, and instead use defense to prevent incoming damage, which allows you to exchange some of heals for offensive abilities.
That way you tank just as well, but deal a ****load more damage and threat.
It that's not important to you, then .... maybe it's you who shoud re-evaluate your whole concept of cruisers.
The reason I'm "raging" against the Ody is that I've seen far too many Odys that can't beat 2k dps on any encounter. Lots that won't even beat 1.5k. No matter how much points you invested in threat control, that's not even enough to hold aggro against a Cmdr-level ship that's build decently.
'Been there, stole aggro on enough of them, 'had to tank in raptors/destroyers/escorts because of it.
And I'm laughing every time my Fed Eng in her MAC, still using RA green Mk X equipment, ends up stealing aggro and tanking perfectly fine while all those over-priced bricks sit there and deal less damage than a shuttle.
No, I'm actually not "raging" against the Ody, I've seen a few (very few) good pilots, though all of them in PvP and not a single one in PvE. I'm "raging" against people(!) who think that spending 50$ on a ship is an I-WIN-Button, then end up with builds making them useless.
Not against the ship.
As stated above already, but I guess you missed that.
Edit:
Just as you missed that part of maelwy5's post, that was what my "tanky utility" comment was aimed at ...
Umm... how should I begin to address this one?
Ok:
1. The two builds I posted contain 6 Tactical powers for the Tac Ody and 5 for the Sci Ody. You can shuffle the powers around a bit, but aren't going to find a workable Ody setup that has more DPS potential than that combination of BOFFs.
2. The only "utility" build I posted was an alternative combo for the Tac Ody, this was used to very good effect in 'keepaway' missions like CSE - it's capable of handling two Kang attack waves simultaneously, and both TBR and GW1 are actually pretty good for pulling hate from multiple targets. This is not the only workable alternative build I've used for an Odyssey.
3. That Weapons "Buffer power drain beyond 125" bit you mentioned as the basis for your argument?
(i) It only applies for beams.
(ii) The increase in DPS isn't nearly as noticable as it first appears, in fact, the extra DPS for every point over 125 drops off very sharply (and incidentally, the Tac Ody can hit 130 before you even start adding Weapons Power Consoles).
How do I know this?
I tested it personally quite a while ago. Note the spreadsheet.
Threat Control acts as a damage impact multiplier. A Cruiser using a reasonable amount of DPS will pull aggro off a well-kitted-out Escort, assuming that Escort does not also have points invested into threat control.
Myself and others have tested this, and debated it quite thoroughly in many previous threads.
You'll notice that there's quite a lot of debate in many of those threads linked between myself and ussultimatum: we're not just agreeing with each other for the sake of it here.
You do not NEED maximum possible defence, just as you do not NEED maximum possible Damage output. It's always helpful to try to push your DPS up once you've got the rest of your build sorted, but it shouldn't be the only thing you focus on.
Reasonable DPS and heavy investment into Threat Control is one half of making a decent Tank. Sufficient survivability and mobility are the other half. It's possible to cover both those halfs sufficiently and still have powerslots left over, especially on an Odyssey.
That's not to say there aren't some TRIBBLE-poor builds flying around out there (and I've met most of them in PUG STFs - Cruisers, Carriers and Escorts - the Ody is no exception!) but don't judge what's POSSIBLE by what you've seen someone manage to do (or more likely, by what you've seen them "not manage to do")
Let's start with the most important one you fail to understand:
PERMENANT Weapon Power, from settings, ship boni, consoles, skill ... is CAPPED at 125. No surprise your experiments didn't yield an increase. Because THAT is what you tested.
TEMPORARY Weapon Power, from batteries, EPtW, drain ..., WILL kick in as soon as drain would reduce Weapon Power below the cap.
There's a HUGE difference in how they are handled, and temporary increases cause MASSIVE increases in DPS.
Which is what you're losing out on.
The other thing I'm going to mention:
Yes, Threat Control works as a damage multiplier for threat, correct.
But! If you're dealing less than half the damage of someone else, you won't hold aggro - at least that's the limit I've found to be true. Max.
And if you're gimping your dps output, then any decent (DECENT) Escort will EASILY pull twice the dps of your gimp. Without even a single point in threat control, that's aggro on him.
And once that happens ... well, you've FAILED. You're now a low-dps boat with no purpose. 'Hope that we're talking slow-moving targets, so at least it won't run out of your firing arc.
(Or that the escort gets away, but that's still causing a massive loss for group dps, especially if people just blew their cooldowns.)
And, again, as you probably didn't read my reply to ussultimatum, which would have saved both of us a lot of typing ... While you don't NEED max defense, having it saves you having to bring more heals. Which can be replaced by EPtW for more threat and damage. Which is NEVER a bad idea.
Oh, and against a DECENT Escort/Raptor/BoP, you DO NEED all the dps you can generate. Especially with a Tac Captain in the Escort.
While PvE is easy enough that you can fail quite a bit and still succeed, there's really no need to ADVICE PEOPLE TO DO IT WRONG!
The sentence highlighted proves that you didn't actually look at the spreadsheet in the post I linked.
Go take a look, then re-read what you just wrote.
(The sentences surrounding the one highlighted are in fact wrong. There is no difference in how power bonuses get treated depending on whether they're from temporary or permanent sources. All of them raise the "settle value" of your weapons power by the same amount. The only exception to this is Plasmonic Leech, since it works by adding a small amount of power every few seconds instead of a large amount all at once)
Where on earth are you pulling that "non-optimal DPS" = "50% of an Escorts DPS" from?
You're making up numbers.
As someone quite familiar to you pointed out...
"A decent cruiser will still deal 50-75% of an Escort's damage"
And frankly, as my primary Cruiser character also flies an Escort and has parsed many, many builds... I'd say that's lowballing it, at least in PVE where Huge levels of Spike Damage doesn't count for as much as high levels of Sustained Damage.
I suspect you've gotten your game terminology confused here.
"Defense" is a single form of damage mitigation. It's achievable primarilly by moving faster (though a few other things, like the Elusive trait add to this) and it caps out at 24 impulse speed. And as was pointed out earlier: you don't need defence against any PVE enemy, when you can park in front of the baddest foes and shoot them to death at point-blank range using just EPTS and Hazard Emitters.
If you're referring to damage mitigation in general rather than defence, then you're correct. Taking less damage means you need less heals. But pray tell: on which build have I taken a heal in place of a damage mitigation ability? Or even in place of a Tactical Ability?
You're not actually arguing with anyone but yourself here.
Although: RE your "NEVER a bad idea" comment... did you consider shared cooldowns? For example, by your own logic: should a Cruiser take EPTW instead of EPTS? And no, the answer isn't that you can run two sets of both at once. Particularly if you're going for "maximum damage" - consider Aux2Bat.
Aux2Bat shares a cooldown with EPTX, but when you slot the right DOFFs, it grants a substantial cooldown buff every 30 seconds or so (to everything, including Tactical Powers). You could run Aux2Bat and EPTW3, theoretically, but it'd make your cruiser a total lightweight in terms of survivability.
I was asked to provide the data, and I have gathered it as best as I can. Since I treated both ships similarly, it will likely help give some determination of just what it can do, though with these facts in mind I will likely run a few more missions to see how it turns out.
If that's the case then this fact needs to be publicized much more.
Almost every post I have ever seen insists that any power over 125 is power that is wasted. If it acts as a buffer, then it really isn't "wasted," so this assertion does not tell the entire story. But from reading those threads it seems to have slipped off into the aether, never to be seen or heard from again.
However...
And attitudes like yours are why people don't post on the forums to ask things like why a rainbow cruiser is bad. There is a reason I am asking.
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data. And I've been letting that effect how I replied to you. That was wrong, and I, again, apologize.
The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly, with both beams and cannons, the results have been parsed both manually and using the current (and finally working) version of the ACT plugin, and the results matched.
If you look up the PvP forums, you'll see that people there make use of this quite regularily and with great success.
Problem being: this game has gone through a couple of incarnations in combat mechanics and skill changes already, and, like in so many other case where information gets outdated, people still believe the old versions and theories to be accurate and will just repeat them ad nauseam, with horrible harm to the people who listen and follow their advice.
Unfortunately, a very common issue in science, and less harmful but still annoying, in theorycrafting for games.
...
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point. There's so many mistakes you made, that I'd be typing for a week to list all of it, and I'm not going to do so.
You can ask another time, and maybe I'll try to explain, but for now I can't see any indication that you're able to see that you're wrong. No sense going any further with this.
'Doesn't mean I'm out of this thread if further questions arise, though my replies to your posts will be restricted to pointing out where you're giving horrible advice, not in spending any effort to explain to you why.
And where is your data to refute what Maelwy5 has put forward?
The answer is you have none.
Instead you'll hurl insults and hope other readers don't notice you have absolutely nothing to back up your argument except for CAPITAL LETTERS.
Yes, by Maelwy5.
Let me translate:
"I've run out of arguments, have nothing to back up what I'm saying so i will backpedal and fling insults in an attempt to discredit the other posters. Hopefully no one will notice I haven't put forward any data of my own because I don't have any data even 1/5th as complete as what Maelwy5 has put forward."
I kind of didn't want to blatantly point this out, because I don't like highlighting whenever other people are digging themselves into a deep pit... but if you're taking PVP board threads as your primary source of information, then you'll find one of two things:
(i) They're talking about an OLD system (in the past there has been a hard cap of 125, with no buffer. As well as a hard cap of 135) so please check the date on the thread.
(ii) They're talking about the current system - in which case the data they're using is likely primarily derived from the data on that very spreadsheet which I created and linked to above.
I'm certainly not the only one who has performed testing on this, and I certainly can't take credit for the theory... but at the time of posting my results pretty much confirmed what was already suspected by certain members of the STO community, and those results have been used since then to prove the point in many threads, both in and out of the PVP forums. You'll find that spreadsheet in particular linked all over the place.
I hope you can see that attempting to argue with the information I'm posting based upon the same information I'm posting is a bit... well...
For examples of the aforementioned results, and a full history of the Weapons cap interaction, I suggest you try searching for PVP board posts by dontdrunkimshoot, amongst many others. Heck, just google for over 125 weapons power and see what pops up. I guarantee you that you'll find several examples linking to my results, and no reasonable disagreements with it.
Bearing all that in mind, I'm still curious as to what "misinformation" you think we're spreading here... but I trust that other readers of this thread will be able to make up their own minds about it.
I most certainly agree.
In an effort to get things straightened out a bit here:
I'm still interested in seeing your parses for the Sci Ody + Tac Ody.
I'm pretty sure that it'll come down to gameplay style (essentially: "do you spend less than 30 seconds before changing targets?"), the BOFF setup variations are more 'additional versatility' than anything else and actually tilt the scales slightly in favour of the Tac Ody.
Concerning the Weapons Cap, currently any power over 125 does not contribute to your firepower, but it does act as a buffer (for beams anyway). What that means is that excess weapons power will not make your shots fire at a level higher than 125, but when you're firing multiple weapons simultaneously your power levels will not dip down as drastically.
In terms of damage potential: if you're sitting at 125 without any additional power, your initial shot won't see any benefit, but later shots in your weapon cycle will. There's a severe dropoff in DPS-benefit-per-point-of-energy after about 135 as you can see from that old spreadsheet.
That 'severe dropoff after 135' bit is quite important - remember the MACO shield that everyone uses at endgame? It has a built-in passive power called "Power Conduit Link" which grants +2 energy whenever you get hit (and when tanking stuff, you're going to get hit a lot). This power bonus lasts for 15 seconds, and stacks up to five times... I think you can see where I'm going with this...
Since I got some sleep and feel a bit less ragy than yesterday, I'll give this one more try:
No, I'm not "relying" on PvP threads. I'm using PvP and PvE threads to check for ideas, which I then test to see if they work, and how they do so. I'm doing these test by using combatlog parses, both manually and using the 1.1 plugin for ACT, which actually seems to work (at least the numbers match with the manually calculated ones, which was not the case for previous versions of the ACT plugin and is not the case for any other parser, at least it wasn't last time i checked).
And as mentioned above, I'm quite aware of the nature of changing combat mechanics.
My prefered target for sustained dps tests are the borg command ships in Red Alerts, though I'm also watching parses on all other content - easy to do with a second screen. While you inevitably have some variance due to changing group compositions and skill use (-> changing debuffs and debuff uptimes, inconsistencies in buff uptimes), this effect can be neutralized by running enough parses for a statistical analysis.
Which is also the reason I'm not ready to present numbers yet, as I'd need a couple hundred parses, not just the couple dozen I have now - but these couple dozen are consistent enough in the results that I'm fairly certain about the results already, and are matched by observations from those parses that don't qualify for statistical evaluation.
As for your test, you mixed quite a couple effects together there, most important being:
a) permenant weapon power vs temporary weapon power
b) a glitch that enables beams to use overcapped permenant weapon power (no clue if that one still exists or has been fixed, but it existed when you tested. personally I'm not interested in abusing bugs, so I won't bother with it anyway)
c) using EPS Power Transfer to simulate higher energy levels.
d) choice of target and scenario for the test.
a) is actually working, and intended to work, just as I described already - permenant power is capped at 125, as is (permenant power + temporary power - drain).
By not seperatin between temporary and permenant power and instead listing (permanent power + temporary power) as your scale, you're already invalidating your whole test.
b) this invalidates your 130 and 135 weapon power entries - all you've done with these is to validate a bug, and a bug that only effects beams.
c) EPS Power Transfer has two effects that impact your test:
- it provides a boost to temporary weapon power, that works just like EPtW or batteries,
- and it also provides a boost to power regeneration, basically a "power over time" effect, which impacts weapon power like a HoT impacts health. The longer you shoot with EPSPT up, the stronger this effect gets, and the total gain from it can be up to nearly 40 extra weapon power at the end of the duration, though it's really, really hard to measure excactly.
I'm pretty certain though that it counted at least for a two-digit increase in weapon power for your test.
Note that this power regeneration form EPSPT is distinct from power regenration from EPS, which is important to note since EPS power regeneration is not supposed to effect weapon drain regeneration (and as far as I can see from my test, really doesn't effect it anymore), while the regeneration from PSTPT DOES work against weapon drain.
d) Your target, it's too squishy. At least, if you wanted to test for sustained damage. At the start of a firing cycle, power levels fluctuate wildly, all through the first salvo and into the second. By that time though, your target already exploded.
You really need to shoot at something sturdy so that weapon cycles and power levels drop into a constant pattern.
The other big issue with your test conditions is that you did not test for using abilities. I understand you were trying to keep test conditions as clean as possible, but since you were using EPSPT this really, really backfired: using CRF or FAW speeds up your weapon cycles and thereby your drain cycles, which in combination with EPSPT yield a different (higher) benefit.
While that's not technically a problem with your test scenario, but with the conclusions you drew from it.
The total effect is that ... well, your test is indeed useless. Too many flaws, and the effects of those flaws multiply, for a huge number.
Make a clean test, using dual EPtW for near-constant uptime, use at least a Tac Cube as target, run the test with both cannons and beams, both with and without using FAW/CRF ... and you'll notice.
Yes, that takes more work. You'll have to filter out all periods where your target used mitigating abilities, all those periods where it caught debuffs from teammates actually trying to kill it instead of making scientific observations ... but that's really not that hard.
And, just to get back to the original topic: this mechanic of weapon power really makes a difference when discussing Ody/Bort-variants, since you'll have to make adjustments to the Sci's build ... or lose about another console's worth of dps, at minimum.
(a) I'm still not sure where you're getting this from, quite frankly. The way weapons power mechanics work in the game is that there is a single pool of energy - "Weapons Power" which can be at varying levels but is "hard capped" at zero and 125. The way the cap works is that extra energy over a certain value (currently 125 - it has been 135 in the past) is recorded, but not actually used in the damage calculations.
It doesn't matter what sources you use to raise this energy level. It could be Skillpoint investment into Warp Core Performance, or Efficient BOFFs, or EPTW, or Batteries, or Energy Siphon. The game knows no difference between the sources, it just knows it has X energy available to use at any given time. For the duration of any given buff period, weapons power is added to the pool, then when the buff expires it is subtracted again.
If it DID work the way you're suggesting, then you would see a difference in firing when under the effects of a weapons battery (try it: get to a high weapons value - say 135, then lower your weapons power to 60 and use a [+75] battery to get to the same level. If at these points you fire two beams simultaneously, you'll see the same results to your weapons energy readout in both cases. There IS a difference in DPS when you use EPTW, but this is due to the extra weapons skillpoint bonus from EPTW, not the Weapons Energy it grants being "temporary")
(b) Is the entire point of the test.
Beams use overcapped weapons energy to buffer/offset the energy reserved during weapons cycles. This is only in effect when you would otherwise dip below 125 weapons power. Beams do not get more damaging when you go over the cap (a beam fired at 130 weapons energy will not grant more damage than at 125) - the "hard cap" is still at 125.
(c) Use of EPS was neccessary to simulate higher energy levels because the ship I used could not go above 135 natively. EPTW was not used because the Energy Weapons skillpoint bonus would have skewed the results. Weapons Batteries were not used beacuase the effects were of too short a duration to cover the cycle period.
EPS grants a power recovery bonus, but this does not impact on your weapons firing cycle in the slightest - it's exactly the same mechanic as when you use an EPS Engineering console, known as a buff to your "Power Transfer Rate".
In the past (many seasons ago) EPS recovery DID impact your DPS - you couldn't fire more than a few weapons at a time before you started to run out of weapons energy, and everyone needed to run multiple EPS consoles. However this is no longer the case. For the past several seasons EPS Consoles have done nothing for weapons power recovery - they simply shorten the time it takes to move from one power setting to another.
From here - "As a result of this change to the energy drain mechanic, the EPS Flow Regulator Station Mods, will no longer have an effect on DPS. They will continue to function to improve power transfer rates between different systems."
It changed because the mechanic behind weapons fire changed:
Whenever you fire more than one energy weapon simultaneously, previously the energy was simply consumed. Currently, instead of being consumed it is "reserved" - a block of energy from your available pool is set aside temporarilly. Whilst it is being reserved, this energy is basically in limbo until it is released again (which takes place at the end of the weapons firing cycle).
So currently whenever you broadside something with beams, what happens is that each beam over the first one reserves weapons energy - this is listed in the UI as 10 energy each, so you can expect your weapons power to dip to by around 60 points when firing seven beams (there are slight variations due to rounding). The bug currently in place is that whenever beams reserve this weapons power they are ignoring the cap. They take their reserve from the UNCAPPED weapons power value. So if you have a "buffer" over 125 power, instead of your weapons energy always dropping to 65 during a broadside, it'll drop a bit less.
After the beams fire, they release their energy again and you'll rise back to normal levels (125). This is as a result of the energy being released, not a result of it being regenerated via Power Transfer Bonuses.
The only time power transfer bonuses come into consideration is after a Beam overload, which REMOVES energy rather than reserving it.
My target didn't die once during the test. If you read the main tab of the spreadsheet, you'll see stated quite clearly at the bottom that my target was a ship piloted by a second account.
This ship used no resistance buffs at all over the course of the test period, but to eliminate any passive buffs, I used the bracketed (pre resistance) values staken straight from the raw in-game combat logs, all the data from which which you can see dumped onto the other tabs of the sheet.
Abilities would skew the results in various ways and be unhelpful towards establishing a clean pattern. Although I have tested and quantified their effects elsewhere.
The purpose of the Weapons Energy test as stated in the thread linked was to investigate whether there was any effect on Beam weapon cycles whenever your ship has a weapons energy level of higher than 125.
The test proved that this "buffer" effect DID exist, and quantified the DPS benefit from energy levels of 115 through to 164. This coverage was sufficiently wide enough to enable me to establish an observable pattern, and it became superfluous to do any further testing.
You're kidding me, right?
Because that's EXCACTLY what it's doing:
Set Permenant Energy to 125, pop EPtW and fire Three beams and Weapon Power stays constant at 125.
Set Permenant Energy to 125 pop a Weapon battery, and fire Broadsides ... and Weapon Power stays constant at 125 for 10 seconds.
Set Permanent Energy to 125, pop EPtW and fire Broadsides ... and Energy will to dip excactly the EPtW increase higher than without EPtW.
At least in the version of the game that I'm playing right now that IS how it works.
On ALL my ships.
What's going on here, please? Are we playing different games ... or are you the biggest troll ever? Or worse?
Seriously, this is just hilarious, go test yourself!