test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

T5 cruisers could possibly do with a damage boost

adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
edited October 2012 in Federation Discussion
Ok, I know that there have been a lot of "Cruisers need a damage buff" threads recently and by now most of us are bored of them, I myself am but I felt this was worth saying.

I run the T3 Excelsior and the T5 Excelsior and decided, for %$^%s and giggles, I'd take my T3 one out for a while. I did a couple of STFs in it KASN and CSE, I can already hear people thinking "Get to the point already!" so here is said point:

My T3 Excelsior managed to pull a gates agro off an Oddy and a T5 Escort, hold it and survive at the same time. All the while putting out the same damage figures of my T5 version using the same build (As shown below).

My T3 Excelsior

My T5 Excelsior

T3 weapons, consoles and equipment

Wepons
2 Polarised Tetryon Beam arrays Mk XI
2 Phased Tetryon Beam arrays Mk XI [Acc] [Dmg]
2 Adv Fleet Tetryon Beam arrays Mk XII [Dmg]x3 [Acc]

Equipment
Full Mk XI MACO

Consoles
Eng: 2 Neutronium Mk XI (Blue), Borg
Sci: Field gen Mk XI (Blue)
Tac: 2 Tetryon pulse gen Mk XI (Blue)

T5 weapons, consoles and equipment

Weapons
as T3 with 2 Quantum Torp launchers Mk XII [Borg]

Equipment
Full Mk XII MACO

Consoles
Eng: 2 Neutronium Mk XI (Blue), 1 Monotanuim Mk XI (Blue), Borg
Sci: 2 Field gen Mk XI (Blue)
Tac: 3 Tetryon pulse gen Mk XI (Blue)

DOFFs (Same on both)
2x Conn officer - tac team cd reduction (Blue)
Matter-anti matter spec (Blue)
Damage control (Blue)
Tech (Blue)

The T3 ship was doing 500-800 damage per hit critting at about 1000-1050 per hit, the reason for this thread is that despite the extra tac console the T5 does EXACTLY the same.

I do cycle EPtW and EPtS on both ships and I do make use of AP:B whenever possible, so, any ideas?
ZiOfChe.png?1
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • flekhflekh Member Posts: 233 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    If not for the extra console, I could explain a 10% difference: You're running EPtS2+EPtS1 on your T3, while only dual EPtS1 on your T5. That's 5 points of weapon power, 7 after EPS skill. Also, you get another +2.5% all energy for 5 seconds.
    The added console SHOULD really make up for that though, and a bit more.

    Can you repeat the last test again without tac consoles?

    From the values you crossposted over three threads now (:P) I'd say that one of your Tetryon consoles on the T5 is malfunctioning, but ... no clue how or why something like that could happen. The values for the T3 look fine.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Well I can't repeat the test now because of the real life time however I will repeat it tomorrow and run both tests as it may end up being a different ship as the target
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited October 2012
    Easy fix

    Determine how much damage a cruiser should
    Do compared to avg escort

    Eng/Cruiser.....add buffs
    Tac/Escort.......add buffs

    Bring up the % of damage the Eng needs
    Tied to his slated ships to desired goal

    Problem solved
    Easily adjusted if need be

    Personally I think torpedo damage against shields
    Should be raised for engineer to give him a boost

    It would fit into his description and skill set as well
    This would have to be linked to his ships of
    Course
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • corsair114corsair114 Member Posts: 276
    edited October 2012
    Engi's are supposed to control the battlefield with bullwarks and mines, right? Why not give them some mine related powers? Maybe an Engineer-unique Mine pattern, or something of the like.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,921 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Lets face it, Cruisers and Science could use a little umph...not saying they should be equal ground as Escorts on damage but it would be nice to see them get a little nudge damage wise.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    jellico1 wrote: »
    Determine how much damage a cruiser should
    Do compared to avg escort

    Eng/Cruiser.....add buffs
    Tac/Escort.......add buffs

    Bring up the % of damage the Eng needs
    Tied to his slated ships to desired goal

    How does this fix this issue? We're talking about The CMDR Excelsior performing just as well for damage output as it's RA counterpart and (minus a little cap) shield tanking just as well also... This has nothing to do with cruisers in general, well it does if this is not a malfunction of some kind then it says that Cryptic/PWE/People of authority really doesn't care for cruisers and (minus a few exceptions) haven't given them any real upgrades since CMDR rank... which I actually find hard to believe.

    I have already suggested better ways to reduce the damage gulf between the average cruiser and the average escort but everyone (Except Biteme. though even he didn't say anything about it) ignored it. See the PvP forums if you're interested
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited October 2012
    Your idea is a good one so are many others

    I offered this as a simple way to adjust damage over a entire
    Class that would work as good with less
    Work on a Devs part

    It would also be easier to tweak , amd less
    Likely to unbalance another part of the game

    Just like the extend shields shared cool down mess that just
    Occurred and still isn't over or fully tested yet
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    new week, new "buff cruisers" thread. This time with a slight deveation in the topic, but the usual suspects comment in the thread.

    why would a t5 need a buff based on the assumption that a t3 does the same dmg?
    that t5 has 2 additional weapon slots and BOFF slots.

    i'm not even entirely sure about those numbers...as i said before, and i say it again. plz use the numbers that are presented in the weapon tray...not "on-hit" numbers, since on hit numbers can be blured due to resistance etc.

    pretty sure the weapon tray numbers will be higher on the t5 than on the t3, due to the 3rd tac console. "on-hit" numbers are subject to many other diminishing factors, range being only one.
    Go pro or go home
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    baudl wrote: »
    new week, new "buff cruisers" thread. This time with a slight deveation in the topic, but the usual suspects comment in the thread.

    why would a t5 need a buff based on the assumption that a t3 does the same dmg?
    that t5 has 2 additional weapon slots and BOFF slots.

    i'm not even entirely sure about those numbers...as i said before, and i say it again. plz use the numbers that are presented in the weapon tray...not "on-hit" numbers, since on hit numbers can be blured due to resistance etc.

    pretty sure the weapon tray numbers will be higher on the t5 than on the t3, due to the 3rd tac console. "on-hit" numbers are subject to many other diminishing factors, range being only one.

    But at the same time the "on-hit" numbers are more realistic because they take that into account but at the same time how do you account for both ships as configured above producing the same figures?

    Also with regard to your "new "buff cruisers" thread" complaint, this was an experiment, I documented my findings thought to myself "This can't be right", tested again on a player ship's bare hull at the same distance (give or take 0.05km) and came up with the same results. so here I am asking for peoples ideas of how this could have come about, chances are like flekh said, it's probably just a console malfunction but if it's all working properly then there IS something wrong with the ship... the can be NO other explanation under the test circumstances
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    But at the same time the "on-hit" numbers are more realistic because they take that into account but at the same time how do you account for both ships as configured above producing the same figures?

    they are more realistic, but impractical for any kind of comparison. and why shouldn't the t3 cruiser with same weapons do the same dmg? (ok despite the 1 less tac console)
    a couple of STF runs is not the place to make accurate measuremant (said that the last time you postet that in another thread) thats why i find it more than doubtfull that they produce the "exact" same numbers.

    but as i said, compare the numbers represented in the weapon tray...make a screenshot (you must use this command /screenshot_ui_jpg)
    compare both numbers, and post it here again (you must hover over the weapon to highlight it's dmg numbers)...if they are exactly the same.
    Open also the status window of both ships, so we can have a look at your exact config.
    Go pro or go home
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    This isn't an argument that has anything to do with cruisers whatsoever. I can pull similar DPS numbers on a Tier 3 escort to that of an unwrapped VA MVAE, because weapons don't "downgrade" depending on the ship they're mounted to. In fact the Excel keeps the same shield mod too no matter which flavor it comes in, so if you strap a MACO shield to the Tier 3, it'll be exactly the same as that of one strapped to a a Tier 5 (go ahead and try it).

    Basically it's dishonest to compare Tier 3s to Tier 5s, especially from the perspective of a fully-levelled/specced character. The Tiers are designed for levelling (when you wouldn't have had nearly as many buffs and various boosts and skills as you do now), not for comparing in retrospect.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    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
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    This isn't an argument that has anything to do with cruisers whatsoever. I can pull similar DPS numbers on a Tier 3 escort to that of an unwrapped VA MVAE, because weapons don't "downgrade" depending on the ship they're mounted to. In fact the Excel keeps the same shield mod too no matter which flavor it comes in, so if you strap a MACO shield to the Tier 3, it'll be exactly the same as that of one strapped to a a Tier 5 (go ahead and try it).[/QOUTE]

    Well you shouldn't as the MVAE has more consoles and boff skills so the ships should have some difference in damage

    Basically it's dishonest to compare Tier 3s to Tier 5s, especially from the perspective of a fully-levelled/specced character. The Tiers are designed for levelling (when you wouldn't have had nearly as many buffs and various boosts and skills as you do now), not for comparing in retrospect.

    Like I said in my opening post, I pulled the old one out for a laugh (not to compare them) and it performed (damage wise) as well as the RA version which shouldn't happen as the RA has an extra console and an extra tac boff skill.

    If the ships performed differently to each other then I wouldn't be here talking about it, but according to my test results the extra tac console and boff skill had no effect. If the previous analysis is correct then the third console needs a fix.

    On this occasion I'm not asking for a general buff to cruiser damage but the extra console and boff skill should put distance between two ships regardless of tier and if the console is working then there really is something up as the ship is dealing 24.4% less damage then it should.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Ok, we have screenshots here and they show different prefire figures, however it doesn't explain the on-hit damage. Although consoles don't explain it either as I've just done the maths as follows:

    Boost from 1 console: 170.3524

    Console boost on retrofit: 26.2*3 = 78.6
    Damage on retrofit (no consoles): 650.2

    650.2*1.786 = 1161.2572

    So expected damage prefire (with consoles) = 1161.2572
    Actual damage prefire (with consoles) = 840.5
    Difference: 320.7572

    Console boost on Standard: 26.2*2 = 52.4
    Damage on standard (no consoles): 650.2

    650.2*1.524 = 990.9048

    So expected damage prefire (with consoles) = 990.9048
    Actual damage prefire (with consoles) = 788.6
    Difference: 202.3048

    So while the prefire damage increases for that 1 console I still find a hole in their maths. You can calculate it in percentages (as I have shown here) or in plain numbers (as I also have) and you should come out with the same results.

    So either I'm wrong, after doing all my calculations 3 times in windows calculator, or the game maths is wrong, or there is a hidden variable
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • flekhflekh Member Posts: 233 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Let's just say that the damage increase promised by consoles is pretty much a lie.

    First, it adds additive with all other +damage% increases (from skills), but that's to be expected. That means you get a fixed amount of damage for each console. Which is actually happening.

    But that's not all:
    I just tested it on my Sci, with Mk XI purple BAs (base damage: 217.7) and Mk Xi blue consoles (+26.2%).

    at 55 power, each console increased the damage by 29.4 (13.5% of base damage, 12.3% if normalized to 50 weapon power)
    at 123 power, each console increased the damage by 54.6 (25.1% of base damage, 10.2% if normalized to 50 weapon power)

    ... I don't have an explanation for THAT one.

    Basically, another console adds about 10% real damage, far from the promised numbers.
    Which explains your original observation: The increase in weapon power and energy damage from EPtW1 to EPtW2 cancels out the additional console, completely.
    Why and how? No clue. I'd need to do some more math to come up with a model for the actual increases, from which I could reverse-engineer the actual mechanics.

    TL;DR: console damage increases as shown are ... very optimistic.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    flekh wrote: »
    Let's just say that the damage increase promised by consoles is pretty much a lie.

    Yes, let's do that
    flekh wrote: »
    First, it adds additive with all other +damage% increases (from skills), but that's to be expected. That means you get a fixed amount of damage for each console. Which is actually happening.

    But that's not all:
    I just tested it on my Sci, with Mk XI purple BAs (base damage: 217.7) and Mk Xi blue consoles (+26.2%).

    at 55 power, each console increased the damage by 29.4 (13.5% of base damage, 12.3% if normalized to 50 weapon power)
    at 123 power, each console increased the damage by 54.6 (25.1% of base damage, 10.2% if normalized to 50 weapon power)

    ... I don't have an explanation for THAT one.

    Well this is interesting, so we have two ships (and two careers?) showing similar results
    flekh wrote: »
    Basically, another console adds about 10% real damage, far from the promised numbers.
    Which explains your original observation: The increase in weapon power and energy damage from EPtW1 to EPtW2 cancels out the additional console, completely.
    Why and how? No clue. I'd need to do some more math to come up with a model for the actual increases, from which I could reverse-engineer the actual mechanics.

    I decided to read the console text and they all say "Values do not reflect skills or other modifiers" which could explain a few things, I shall experiment with that theory myself and post any findings here
    flekh wrote: »
    TL;DR: console damage increases as shown are ... very optimistic.

    This confuses me, could you please elaborate on it for me?
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Ok, my most recent findings.

    I theorised that the console boost is based on the weapon base damage. I came out with this:

    Base damage: 274.4
    3 Console boost: 78.6%

    Expected end damage: 490.0784
    3 Console boost: 215.6784
    1 Console boost: 71.8928

    Damage with 3 consoles: 840.5
    Expected damage without consoles: 624.8216

    (running 99 weapon power)

    I think I'm close but if this theory is correct then the game system is still wrong and they still need to look at it
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • flekhflekh Member Posts: 233 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    but if this theory is correct then the game system is still wrong and they still need to look at it

    ... I'd beg to differ.
    The game system is fine - the balance it creates if fine. Not perfect, but fine.
    What's wrong is that the game doesn't tell us what we can really expect to gain from an item. That it doesn't let us make educated decisions. That the only way to get some useful data is to actually run experiments instead of playing the game.
    In short: it's the classic Lying Tooltip.

    You're right though, they need to look at stuff like that.

    If the game actually worked like the tooltips say it would ... oh, ... TRIBBLE ... that might be a bit overpowered. :D
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    flekh wrote: »
    If the game actually worked like the tooltips say it would ... oh, ... TRIBBLE ... that might be a bit overpowered. :D

    It would be for something like an escort but I think it would be a little refreshing for cruisers to gain those few points a the end of the day, it wouldn't be anything major on cruisers or on sci ships, it's more the mass of tac skills on escorts that would blow it there
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I think in general the game either needs to A) Explain what has diminishing returns and how large of an effect they will have (aka what the cap is, and where it starts to have a reduced effect, and what the maximum potential you can achieve will be), or B) Remove those diminishing returns (which is broken and OP as hell, so I do NOT support this idea).

    Just my 2 ECs.
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    *Dislaimer this is just a guess from my first glance at the numbers. I will have to do (and will) better testing to confirm or deny*

    My guess would be that the multiplication is being done in an odd place inside the formula that causes the consoles not to scale as strongly with weapon power. The standard assumption for the formula would be something like this

    (Base Damage + Skill Bonus Damage + Console Bonus Damage) * Weapon Power Multiplier

    But in reality is is probably something really weird where the console bonus gets placed somewhere really odd. My curiosity is piqued.

    Ok just came back from testing on tribble and granted I am using the tooltip values which may or may not be lying but I did not see anything that would explain your results.

    The Test
    Character with 0 skills that effect weapon damage. Using Mk 11 and an Mk 12 purple DHC and Mk 11 BA
    @ 50 power level, numbers are in weapon order listed above
    0 Console: 377.9 / 395.7 / 224.7
    1 Console: 423.6 / 552.4 / 251
    2 Console: 469.3 / 487.0 / 277.2

    @100 power
    0 Console: 755.9 / 791.4 / 449.4
    1 Console: 847.2 / 882.7 / 501.9
    2 Console: 938.6 / 974.1 / 554.4

    I also tested the skills to see if they scaled properly with weapons power and they do. Also tested a combination of skills and consoles and they both added and scaled properly. So one of two possibilities exist, either there is something else going on effecting your results or the tooltips lie. Can you post the full gear/skill set of the toons?
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Just to elaborate a bit on how the math does work from my understanding.

    First, there is a base number that all damage is derived from. To find a weapons damage you use that base number, modify it by rate of fire, arc, mark level, and quality level. Futhermore skill bonuses and console bonuses also use THAT number instead of the weapon's number but are still modified by the rate of fire and arc but not the rest. As do some (not all) boff abilities which on a side note is why this game's scaling is completely messed up and it will break with a level cap increase or gear level increase but I digress. That leads to the simple DPV formula of:

    (Weapon Base + Skill Mod + Console Mod) * Weapon Power Mod = Damage.

    Which I have yet to personally see not to work.
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    Ok, we have screenshots here and they show different prefire figures, however it doesn't explain the on-hit damage. Although consoles don't explain it either as I've just done the maths as follows:

    Boost from 1 console: 170.3524

    Console boost on retrofit: 26.2*3 = 78.6
    Damage on retrofit (no consoles): 650.2

    650.2*1.786 = 1161.2572

    So expected damage prefire (with consoles) = 1161.2572
    Actual damage prefire (with consoles) = 840.5
    Difference: 320.7572

    Console boost on Standard: 26.2*2 = 52.4
    Damage on standard (no consoles): 650.2

    650.2*1.524 = 990.9048

    So expected damage prefire (with consoles) = 990.9048
    Actual damage prefire (with consoles) = 788.6
    Difference: 202.3048

    So while the prefire damage increases for that 1 console I still find a hole in their maths. You can calculate it in percentages (as I have shown here) or in plain numbers (as I also have) and you should come out with the same results.

    So either I'm wrong, after doing all my calculations 3 times in windows calculator, or the game maths is wrong, or there is a hidden variable

    Your equipping the borg console (+5 weapons power) at the same time which will obviously mess up the math. I really should have looked at those sooner.
Sign In or Register to comment.