Sorry I took so long to answer your post but I just got home. Basically what you said was correct, and I would have told you that for damage only, the 125 is a hard cap. But that overclocking on weapon power was mostly to reduce weapon energy drain. Because it doesn't matter how much higher your weapon power is over 125 for damage, but if you have it overclocked, it applies to weapon energy drain.
Hence a higher damage range because power is down less.
A tactic I often use to get better uptime on the engi captain abilities is to stagger my activations. I know it's common practice to hit EPS and NI, but I stagger the two. I hit EPS first, and when that's about to run out, I hit NI. Then I hit EPS again shortly thereafter. And two minutes later, I rinse and repeat. It's actually much more effective than the usual 3 minute cycles.
I have a similar tactic using the DEM doff, I run up FAW2/BO2 (Dependent upon my number of targets/my game plan upon entering a zone) with AP:B2, EPS and then DEM, wait for the cds on FAW/BO and AP:B and then use NI to support them, then I run them without a power buff allowing my next attack to be EPS and DEM (doff) backed
Because KDF cruisers have more agility, cloaking devices, and DHCs. They're fine the way the way they are.
(as a KDF engineer who's has extensive bridge time on the Negh'var and Vor'cha)
I think an easier solution would be to revamp the Galaxy-X into something like a KDF battle cruiser and see how things go. Failing that add +1 or +2 turning to all fed cruisers. I found turning to be one of the single biggest game changers when I flew my free Ody.
You sure it's just 150? I have had full 7 beam salvos (-70 to WP) that only drop my weapons power to 90. And that is without hitting an EPtW in the middle of a salvo (something else I do to kick up damage randomly). I am sure it's at least 160.
1 beam alone doesnt drain power. So you get one without a drain, but the 6 others drain power. Thats why -60 and not -70
I think somebody owns a Galaxy-X and wishes they didn't. >_>
As it turns out its a ship I WISH I wanted to own... but well, its too much like the regular ultra space whale Galaxy. I already have a free Ody when I feel like smashing my head against a wall.
As it turns out its a ship I WISH I wanted to own... but well, its too much like the regular ultra space whale Galaxy. I already have a free Ody when I feel like smashing my head against a wall.
Amusingly enough the Gal-X is one of the few cruisers I don't feel gimped flying. In PvE atleast. I flew a Kitty carrier and a Vo'Quv(?) at the time on other toons though so I thought it was quite agile.
Just give me a fleet version of it with the fleet vor'cha boff layout and then I'll finally have a whale that can keep up. Good solution.
Amusingly enough the Gal-X is one of the few cruisers I don't feel gimped flying.
Really?? I must admit, I saw he turning on it and immediatly knew it'd be a giant exercise in frustration for me. If I put DHCs on it i'd never turn enough, and if I didn't use DHCs I'd always want to lol.
Really?? I must admit, I saw he turning on it and immediatly knew it'd be a giant exercise in frustration for me. If I put DHCs on it i'd never turn enough, and if I didn't use DHCs I'd always want to lol.
For PvE it does fine even with DHCs and if your used to that turn rate from flying carriers it isn't a big deal. Granted I cant go back to it right now since I'm used to escorts and it would likely annoy me but I'm sure I could get used to it again.
Keep in mind too it is not the turn rate that I hate about cruisers. It is the pathetic damage for me personally. Then again my Tac Oddy with a tac toon has been performing at an acceptable level, even if my FPE with eng captain can out tank and out DPS him but oh well variety is the spice of life.
At last the best aproach become from Star Trek canon, where cannons are very powerful weapons but with a very close range. En STO, maybe, set 15km to beams and 8 for cannons (with a heavy loss from 3-4 km). That can solve the problem, giving to cruisers and science vessels a longer treat range and allow also the use of escorts with beams.
At last the best aproach become from Star Trek canon, where cannons are very powerful weapons but with a very close range. En STO, maybe, set 15km to beams and 8 for cannons (with a heavy loss from 3-4 km). That can solve the problem, giving to cruisers and science vessels a longer treat range and allow also the use of escorts with beams.
This has already been thought out, and there are too many ramifications to doing this without some MAJOR balance changes that would be unpleasant.
Example:
Science Vessel running full beams: can use TBR to push a cannon ship away and keep them over 8k away. Can also use SST from 15k out and disable a target before it can get in range.
Cruiser: same thing. TBR then blast it from far out.
You would shaft a lot of cannon ships by doing this.
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.
You would have to search for the thread, but I do think at onetime it was shown that DEM did not work properly with Bfaw.
DEM shouldnt work with BFAW/CSV due to the fact that its targeted on only one ship. As you have seen when we have faced each other, I use single cannon and torp/turret build on my cruiser.
I'm all for improvements for Single cannons. Especially since many Klingon sources talk about how they where mounted down the length of thier ships. Its like where the feds use Beam Arrays the Klingons use single cannons for the same purpose.
Yeah, I'm not so sure how Cryptic envisioned the use of single cannons in the game. It seems the saw JJ Trek and figured they needed a weapon that made shots that looked like what the Enterprise fired but didn't go much further than that.
I would kill for single heavy cannons (firing mechanism similar to dhcs).
I understand your idea on single heavy cannons but adding yet another weapon (and one with cruiser unfriendly arcs) would defeat its purpose. We don't even need single heavy cannons, just a revisit on making the single cannons more effective.
Average damage = 329. You can clearly see the effects of power drain, where the first round of fire starts high and immediately drops off sharply until it reaches an equilibrium near the end of the salvo.
Now, here's the same target, weapons, and range, but this time I had him shoot at me to charge my MACO shield, as well as installed Plasmonic Leech and activated EPTW1, for a hypothetical total of +43 power to weapons which should give me an "overcapped" power level of 165.
Average damage = 528. The profile is rather strange in that the damage drops and then immediately recovers, but in terms of damage output, no contest whatsoever.
Power overcapping: confirmed (if bizarre)
From the data you have posted it looks to me like that its not so much "overcapped" but just continuing to fill a full glass.
Think of it this way:
Take a 125 mililier cap, add 8 straws and put it under a faucet.
If you sip from the straws, the level of water in the glass goes down, reducing the effective capacity of water to draw from. Of course the ship is still generating energy to weapons so that is added to the capacity as well (the normal recharge rate of the ships systems to weapons energy)
Run the faucet at a higher fill rate (batteries, EPTW, etc.) and sip from the straws, the level that it goes down only decreases by the differential between straw "drain" minus fill flow rate.
So if the straw/beam drain rate is 80 and there is no flow it would be:
125-80= 45 +(recharge rate of weapons/sec)
But if you have a power adder (battery, Nadion Inversion, etc...) that is adding 45 power to the weapon systems:
125-80+45=90+ (recharge rate of weapons/sec)
So it can seem that the cap is above 125, but it isn't, it stays at 125, but the fill rate is adding energy just as if you pour fluid into a cup. Once it fills more than 125 "mililiters" the excess energy "overflow" and is lost. It stays at 125 cal but pouring more energy into the system keeps it "mire full" more often.
This has already been thought out, and there are too many ramifications to doing this without some MAJOR balance changes that would be unpleasant.
Example:
Science Vessel running full beams: can use TBR to push a cannon ship away and keep them over 8k away. Can also use SST from 15k out and disable a target before it can get in range.
Cruiser: same thing. TBR then blast it from far out.
You would shaft a lot of cannon ships by doing this.
I see your point and agree. Albeit cruisers would less likely push another ship outside of the respective ships weapons range.
Here are the raw facts about the ship types that is made even more important due to the extremely versatile number of boff setups we are now seeing.
Escort
7 Weapon Slots
+10% Bonus Defense
High Base Speed
High Turn Rate
-.1 Shield
-10% Hull
Can Mount DHCs
+15 Weapon Power
Cruiser
8 Weapon Slots
Low Base Speed
Low Turn Rate
+10k Hull Roughly
+5 All Power
Science Vessel
6 Weapon Slots
Medium Base Speed
Medium Turn Rate
+.3 Shield
-3k Hull Roughly
Sensor Analysis
+15 Auxiliary Power
Granted two of those abilities tend to be given out randomly (DHCs & Sensor Analysis) but so do hangers so I am going to ignore that for now.
Tank Ability
The escort hull gets increased Avoidance. The Science Vessel gets increased Shield Regeneration rates. The Cruiser gets...more hull.
Offense
Escort gets the best guns in the game and the ability to control when and where he engages. The Science Vessel gets a flat 3.3% bonus every six seconds stacking up to 33% that can and will increase damage beyond that of 8 weapons due to mechanic issues. Cruisers get 8 weapon slots and yet cannot even make effective use of them all typically.
Please explain in simple terms what on earth makes the cruiser good at anything? Unless of course you want to tell me with a strait face that having more engineering boff abilities is somehow better than any others.
Tank Ability
The escort hull gets increased Avoidance. The Science Vessel gets increased Shield Regeneration rates. The Cruiser gets...more hull.
.......
Please explain in simple terms what on earth makes the cruiser good at anything? Unless of course you want to tell me with a strait face that having more engineering boff abilities is somehow better than any others.
The cruiser is good when all its little extras work toward tanking. That is how its designed. I must again point out that comparing Fed cruisers and escorts is not the right comparison to make. Instead ask why KDF battlecruisers are so much nicer. They do better damage and are reasonably tanky, all the while having a better turn rating.
The real question is why Fed cruisers are more limited in role than their ridged heads counterparts?
Tank Ability
The escort hull gets increased Avoidance. The Science Vessel gets increased Shield Regeneration rates. The Cruiser gets...more hull.
I dispute that Science Ships get increased shield regen rates. They have the same base shield regen as cruisers and escorts. As for tanking? Cruisers have more hull, but they also have the capability for more armor consoles, which makes that more hull significantly better.
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.
I dispute that Science Ships get increased shield regen rates. They have the same base shield regen as cruisers and escorts. As for tanking? Cruisers have more hull, but they also have the capability for more armor consoles, which makes that more hull significantly better.
Armor consoles hit extreme diminishing returns with active abilities up and are pretty much the worst console slot on a ship used as a 'dump' slot. Finally there are several science vessels that have 3 or 4 engineering console slots so that is also irrelevant.
Maco Mk 12 base regen on DSSV = 225.4
Same on D'Kora base regen = 199.4
Next time you wish to dispute something actually test it. Shield regen is effected by shield modifier of the ship and is yet another reason some Fleet ships are unnecessarily weaker than need be.
Armor consoles hit extreme diminishing returns with active abilities up and are pretty much the worst console slot on a ship used as a 'dump' slot. Finally there are several science vessels that have 3 or 4 engineering console slots so that is also irrelevant.
Maco Mk 12 base regen on DSSV = 225.4
Same on D'Kora base regen = 199.4
Next time you wish to dispute something actually test it. Shield regen is effected by shield modifier of the ship and is yet another reason some Fleet ships are unnecessarily weaker than need be.
I have tested it.
MACO mk XII on Odyssey Tactical Cruiser: 205.3
MACO mk XII on Fleet Recon Science Vessel: 205.3
(same toon, same skills, same consoles. which means NONE. I stripped both ships of consoles and BOffs, threw the shield on, and looked)
Hm... weird.
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.
Both in space at 50 shield power? The cruiser would have a higher base power which may contribute to the discrepancy.
Yes to both. And I compensated for the increased power that cruisers have using special power settings.
I (due to stupidity on my part) had 0 points in efficiency, so I just reduced the custom power settings so that shield power was at 35 for the sci ship, giving me 49 (5 from maxed potential, 9 from maxed shield performance) shield power, and 30 for my cruiser, giving me 49 (5 from cruiser, 5 from potential, 9 from shield performance) shield power.
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.
Sadly that is as low as I can get my power to go on that test toon. The listed number is the value the shield 'claims' to have test done on same toon empty hulls and white MK 9 shield (you owe me 40k EC btw) and does follow the math from base to listed for the slightly higher power.
I have no idea why your tests show differently. Just as a note too, increased shield capacity from either skill or console will have no effect on regeneration rate and +Regen shield consoles do not scale with the shield multiplier.
Was it a Fleet Research Science Vessel perhaps? that ship would have a funky shield modifier with flat bonus shield that just makes the math wonkey. Were you in mission space not sector space? I'm assuming so but yeah, dunno. Maybe it is that particular shield try another one perhaps.
Was it a Fleet Research Science Vessel perhaps? that ship would have a funky shield modifier with flat bonus shield that just makes the math wonkey. Were you in mission space not sector space? I'm assuming so but yeah, dunno. Maybe it is that particular shield try another one perhaps.
MURSV. Exactly the same ship as a regular RSV. I was using the same shield you were (MACO mk XII), and it was in system space, not sector space. Sector space gives whacked values. I retested with a number of different shields, and they all gave the same with each ship/shield combo.
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.
Comments
Hence a higher damage range because power is down less.
R.I.P
Why just fed Cruisers? Why just them?
R.I.P
Because KDF cruisers have more agility, cloaking devices, and DHCs. They're fine the way the way they are.
(as a KDF engineer who's has extensive bridge time on the Negh'var and Vor'cha)
Not true, with EPtW1, NI, FAW2 and AP:B2 in place I still get down to 120
I have a similar tactic using the DEM doff, I run up FAW2/BO2 (Dependent upon my number of targets/my game plan upon entering a zone) with AP:B2, EPS and then DEM, wait for the cds on FAW/BO and AP:B and then use NI to support them, then I run them without a power buff allowing my next attack to be EPS and DEM (doff) backed
I think an easier solution would be to revamp the Galaxy-X into something like a KDF battle cruiser and see how things go. Failing that add +1 or +2 turning to all fed cruisers. I found turning to be one of the single biggest game changers when I flew my free Ody.
1 beam alone doesnt drain power. So you get one without a drain, but the 6 others drain power. Thats why -60 and not -70
I think somebody owns a Galaxy-X and wishes they didn't. >_>
As it turns out its a ship I WISH I wanted to own... but well, its too much like the regular ultra space whale Galaxy. I already have a free Ody when I feel like smashing my head against a wall.
Amusingly enough the Gal-X is one of the few cruisers I don't feel gimped flying. In PvE atleast. I flew a Kitty carrier and a Vo'Quv(?) at the time on other toons though so I thought it was quite agile.
Just give me a fleet version of it with the fleet vor'cha boff layout and then I'll finally have a whale that can keep up. Good solution.
Really?? I must admit, I saw he turning on it and immediatly knew it'd be a giant exercise in frustration for me. If I put DHCs on it i'd never turn enough, and if I didn't use DHCs I'd always want to lol.
For PvE it does fine even with DHCs and if your used to that turn rate from flying carriers it isn't a big deal. Granted I cant go back to it right now since I'm used to escorts and it would likely annoy me but I'm sure I could get used to it again.
Keep in mind too it is not the turn rate that I hate about cruisers. It is the pathetic damage for me personally. Then again my Tac Oddy with a tac toon has been performing at an acceptable level, even if my FPE with eng captain can out tank and out DPS him but oh well variety is the spice of life.
This has already been thought out, and there are too many ramifications to doing this without some MAJOR balance changes that would be unpleasant.
Example:
Science Vessel running full beams: can use TBR to push a cannon ship away and keep them over 8k away. Can also use SST from 15k out and disable a target before it can get in range.
Cruiser: same thing. TBR then blast it from far out.
You would shaft a lot of cannon ships by doing this.
I know what you are saying but we already have stated crew sizes:
A ship with 750 crew have a significantly superior ET/ST/TT results than a ship with 200 crew.
A ship with 1,000 crew should have a noticeable increase of effectiveness of its ET/ST/TT that a ship with a crew of 750, etc...
From the data you have posted it looks to me like that its not so much "overcapped" but just continuing to fill a full glass.
Think of it this way:
Take a 125 mililier cap, add 8 straws and put it under a faucet.
If you sip from the straws, the level of water in the glass goes down, reducing the effective capacity of water to draw from. Of course the ship is still generating energy to weapons so that is added to the capacity as well (the normal recharge rate of the ships systems to weapons energy)
Run the faucet at a higher fill rate (batteries, EPTW, etc.) and sip from the straws, the level that it goes down only decreases by the differential between straw "drain" minus fill flow rate.
So if the straw/beam drain rate is 80 and there is no flow it would be:
125-80= 45 +(recharge rate of weapons/sec)
But if you have a power adder (battery, Nadion Inversion, etc...) that is adding 45 power to the weapon systems:
125-80+45=90+ (recharge rate of weapons/sec)
So it can seem that the cap is above 125, but it isn't, it stays at 125, but the fill rate is adding energy just as if you pour fluid into a cup. Once it fills more than 125 "mililiters" the excess energy "overflow" and is lost. It stays at 125 cal but pouring more energy into the system keeps it "mire full" more often.
I wouldn't say 50%, that's way too much, maybe 10-15% would be more realistic, but KDF cruisers should get it too.
I see your point and agree. Albeit cruisers would less likely push another ship outside of the respective ships weapons range.
Escort
7 Weapon Slots
+10% Bonus Defense
High Base Speed
High Turn Rate
-.1 Shield
-10% Hull
Can Mount DHCs
+15 Weapon Power
Cruiser
8 Weapon Slots
Low Base Speed
Low Turn Rate
+10k Hull Roughly
+5 All Power
Science Vessel
6 Weapon Slots
Medium Base Speed
Medium Turn Rate
+.3 Shield
-3k Hull Roughly
Sensor Analysis
+15 Auxiliary Power
Granted two of those abilities tend to be given out randomly (DHCs & Sensor Analysis) but so do hangers so I am going to ignore that for now.
Tank Ability
The escort hull gets increased Avoidance. The Science Vessel gets increased Shield Regeneration rates. The Cruiser gets...more hull.
Offense
Escort gets the best guns in the game and the ability to control when and where he engages. The Science Vessel gets a flat 3.3% bonus every six seconds stacking up to 33% that can and will increase damage beyond that of 8 weapons due to mechanic issues. Cruisers get 8 weapon slots and yet cannot even make effective use of them all typically.
Please explain in simple terms what on earth makes the cruiser good at anything? Unless of course you want to tell me with a strait face that having more engineering boff abilities is somehow better than any others.
Element Zero Gaming
www.ez-guild.com
The cruiser is good when all its little extras work toward tanking. That is how its designed. I must again point out that comparing Fed cruisers and escorts is not the right comparison to make. Instead ask why KDF battlecruisers are so much nicer. They do better damage and are reasonably tanky, all the while having a better turn rating.
The real question is why Fed cruisers are more limited in role than their ridged heads counterparts?
I dispute that Science Ships get increased shield regen rates. They have the same base shield regen as cruisers and escorts. As for tanking? Cruisers have more hull, but they also have the capability for more armor consoles, which makes that more hull significantly better.
Armor consoles hit extreme diminishing returns with active abilities up and are pretty much the worst console slot on a ship used as a 'dump' slot. Finally there are several science vessels that have 3 or 4 engineering console slots so that is also irrelevant.
Maco Mk 12 base regen on DSSV = 225.4
Same on D'Kora base regen = 199.4
Next time you wish to dispute something actually test it. Shield regen is effected by shield modifier of the ship and is yet another reason some Fleet ships are unnecessarily weaker than need be.
I have tested it.
MACO mk XII on Odyssey Tactical Cruiser: 205.3
MACO mk XII on Fleet Recon Science Vessel: 205.3
(same toon, same skills, same consoles. which means NONE. I stripped both ships of consoles and BOffs, threw the shield on, and looked)
Hm... weird.
Both in space at 50 shield power? The cruiser would have a higher base power which may contribute to the discrepancy.
Yes to both. And I compensated for the increased power that cruisers have using special power settings.
I (due to stupidity on my part) had 0 points in efficiency, so I just reduced the custom power settings so that shield power was at 35 for the sci ship, giving me 49 (5 from maxed potential, 9 from maxed shield performance) shield power, and 30 for my cruiser, giving me 49 (5 from cruiser, 5 from potential, 9 from shield performance) shield power.
239.6 (195.5 listed) on Base Oddy @ 55 power
Sadly that is as low as I can get my power to go on that test toon. The listed number is the value the shield 'claims' to have test done on same toon empty hulls and white MK 9 shield (you owe me 40k EC btw) and does follow the math from base to listed for the slightly higher power.
I have no idea why your tests show differently. Just as a note too, increased shield capacity from either skill or console will have no effect on regeneration rate and +Regen shield consoles do not scale with the shield multiplier.
Was it a Fleet Research Science Vessel perhaps? that ship would have a funky shield modifier with flat bonus shield that just makes the math wonkey. Were you in mission space not sector space? I'm assuming so but yeah, dunno. Maybe it is that particular shield try another one perhaps.
MURSV. Exactly the same ship as a regular RSV. I was using the same shield you were (MACO mk XII), and it was in system space, not sector space. Sector space gives whacked values. I retested with a number of different shields, and they all gave the same with each ship/shield combo.
http://www.stowiki.org/Screen_shot
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8k7SlB4gHaraGpLV05XTGJBOEk/edit Dread Screenshot
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8k7SlB4gHarNnFBY0xTaXZoVlU/edit Nebula Screenshot
Clearly showing a difference in regeneration rates.