test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So the latest atrocity in pvp

zorena#3961 zorena Member Posts: 254 Arc User
edited March 2013 in PvP Gameplay
So I saw a cruser with elite fleet shields, I guess reputation system and Epts3.

Average dps on him was like 50-75
Noone.
Post edited by zorena#3961 on
«1

Comments

  • praxi5praxi5 Member Posts: 1,562 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    zorandra wrote: »
    So I saw a cruser with elite fleet shields, I guess reputation system and Epts3.

    Average dps on him was like 50-75

    I'm going to do this with my Tac/Excelsior.

    Maybe since I'm a Tac, it'll make my DPS 100!
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    edit: Totally misread that. Thought it said from him rather than on him.

    That being said, I've wondered how the EF Disruptor's SDR debuff worked in regard to SDR.

    @125 Aux/125 Shield (yes, there's help from a friend for the ExS3):

    Shield Power 35%
    EPtS3 30%
    RSF 38.6%
    TSS3 22.5%
    ExS3 42.5%
    ResA/B 15%
    Adapt 20%

    1-((1-0.35)*(1-0.30)*(1-0.386)*(1-0.225)*(1-0.425)*(1-0.15)*(1-0.20))
    1-(0.65*0.70*0.614*0.775*0.575*0.85*0.80)
    1-0.08465609425
    91.53% or so...but there is a 75% cap, no?

    Is that +16.53% a SDR overcap buffer? Does it still exist even though it is not applied?

    If there is overcap buffer and the EF Disruptor SDR debuff hits, what is the new SDR?

    75% - 25% + 16.53% = 66.53%

    Or is there no overcap considered?

    75% - 25% = 50%

    Or is it a case that the SDR debuff is calculated during the normal SDR calculation?

    1-(0.65*0.70*0.614*0.775*0.575*0.85*0.80*1.25)
    1-0.1058201178125
    89.42% or so...keeping the 75% cap in mind.

    Basically a case that the EF Disruptor SDR debuff would have no effect on that particular person since they were already over the cap anyway?

    Which would be the new number after the SDR debuff proc?
    50%?
    66.53%?
    75%?
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The E fleet shields are still really stupid.

    I also really hate having to carry a spare set of weapons around in my inv all the time.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • darkfader1988darkfader1988 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    zorandra wrote: »
    So I saw a cruser with elite fleet shields, I guess reputation system and Epts3.

    Average dps on him was like 50-75

    Only way to get that kinda ship down is a spike bop. Sad but true :D

    Still, ask yourself though, is it realy a shame you cannot take down a fleet shield user with EPTS3 and maxed resist? They are pretty much useless or less viable in any 5v5 team premade. Its nice to show off your extended epeen because you cant killed, but thats all tho.

    Its kerrat play lol
    MT - Sad Pandas
  • emoejoeemoejoe Member Posts: 229 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Only way to get that kinda ship down is a spike bop. Sad but true :D

    Still, ask yourself though, is it realy a shame you cannot take down a fleet shield user with EPTS3 and maxed resist? They are pretty much useless or less viable in any 5v5 team premade. Its nice to show off your extended epeen because you cant killed, but thats all tho.

    Its kerrat play lol

    Meh's pinnacle achievable deeps will get u out of bug and back in defiant fed side! RAWR EPIC SPIKE FTW

    come and test these skills!!!!!

    fear the beeps
  • hurleybirdhurleybird Member Posts: 909
    edited March 2013
    The E fleet shields are still really stupid.

    I also really hate having to carry a spare set of weapons around in my inv all the time.

    That's definitely the worst part about them. ResA and ResB modifiers really need to die in a fire. The design mentality behind them is short sighted and the gameplay implications (people constantly switching weapons and shields around in a never ending juggling match) are horrendous. Seems like whomever at Cryptic came up with the idea couldn't be bothered to think things through outside of "Hey, this would be cool!"

    Bort, if you're reading this I know you're smart enough to recognize how flawed the thought behind ResA and ResB is. Any chance at all that these modifiers could be changed to something less obviously stupid?

    I don't mind the entire stacking resist mechanic though. There's a somewhat deep trade-off there where you make yourself much stronger against pressure damage at the expense of being much weaker against well coordinated spike. That weakness is why a large portion of the guys in Pandas are now using KHG/Adapted MACO shields -- there's nothing better against spike.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    hurleybird wrote: »
    Whomever at Cryptic came up with the idea behind them wasn't thinking properly that day.

    Money. Simply money. Probably a Geko thing.

    "Is there a way we can get some of the people to spend more money?"
    "Sure, some of them will just grind it up - but they hate grinding."
    "They'll just buy the Zen to get the Dil."
    "Yes, that's it - make them carry two shields and two sets of weapons!"
  • darkfader1988darkfader1988 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    emoejoe wrote: »
    Meh's pinnacle achievable deeps will get u out of bug and back in defiant fed side! RAWR EPIC SPIKE FTW

    come and test these skills!!!!!

    fear the beeps

    Not really :p rommy tier 5 is all u need!!!
    MT - Sad Pandas
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    the resA/B are horably imbal. change them into a cap mod, there is already the reg mod available.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Hmm I wonder why the example was a cruiser. It's not like cruisers profit from those shields the most.... *waves to the all bug pilots*
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    Hmm I wonder why the example was a cruiser. It's not like cruisers profit from those shields the most.... *waves to the all bug pilots*

    One might say that Cruisers do - stay with me here a moment:

    Consider the high Defense of the Bug.
    Consider the lower Defense of the Cruiser.

    Which is likely to stack faster with Elite Fleet Shields?

    Twisted, yes...ahem...but I haven't had my morning caffeine yet.
  • borgresearcherborgresearcher Member Posts: 451 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    let's hope s8 and new rep system and crew advancements bring some damage procs, to counter these jam and shield procs
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    let's hope s8 and new rep system and crew advancements bring some damage procs, to counter these jam and shield procs

    You mean new passive healing procs ? Escorts still blow up too easily in pve !
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • naeviusnaevius Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Elite fleet shields are way out of line with other gear, to the point where it is immediately obvious when you are shooting at someone with them equipped - you start seeing 2 digit damage numbers only.

    Can we not get even the most egregious stuff nerfed?

    Buffing damage is not the answer, because then other types of shields would be useless.
    _________________________________________________
    [Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
    [Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
    [D'Mented][D'Licious]
    Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    You mean new passive healing procs ? Escorts still blow up too easily in pve !

    You heard it during the Geko interview, am I right? You've seen the forum posts.

    Escorts are still too squishy and don't do enough damage!

    Buff Escorts!

    /gag
  • ussultimatumussultimatum Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    If we assume

    The Target has Res A Resilient (5% absorb) and opponent has Phaser weapons (15%).

    The target has EPTS 3 (30% resistance)

    The target has 125 shield power (35%).

    The target has 10 stacks of the adapt property, at 2% per stack.


    Then, the difference between MACO and a Resilient Res A shield at that point should be about 8 or 9% resistance (with Res A sitting around 69 to 70% SDR).


    The value of Res A / B vs. MACO actually becomes larger if the target has lower power and lower EPTS.

    For example, EPTS 1, 75 power would see the above example change from 8 or 9% to a difference of about 13% between MACO and Res A / B.
  • smokeybacon90smokeybacon90 Member Posts: 2,252 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Nerf anything which cannot be one shotted by a tacscort alpha? The shame. :(
    EnYn9p9.jpg
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Nerf anything which cannot be one shotted by a tacscort alpha? The shame. :(

    That would include the tacsort itself. Trippy, eh? :)
  • darkfader1988darkfader1988 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    yes yes lot of players abuse fleet shields to adapt to your weapons, you simply do the same and use both ResA and ResB weapons, but i agree its rather redundant, remove fleet shields!!!!
    MT - Sad Pandas
  • darkfader1988darkfader1988 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    If we assume

    The Target has Res A Resilient (5% absorb) and opponent has Phaser weapons (15%).

    The target has EPTS 3 (30% resistance)

    The target has 125 shield power (35%).

    The target has 10 stacks of the adapt property, at 2% per stack.


    Then, the difference between MACO and a Resilient Res A shield at that point should be about 8 or 9% resistance (with Res A sitting around 69 to 70% SDR).


    The value of Res A / B vs. MACO actually becomes larger if the target has lower power and lower EPTS.

    For example, EPTS 1, 75 power would see the above example change from 8 or 9% to a difference of about 13% between MACO and Res A / B.

    yup, this is the nice effect of diminishing returns ^^
    MT - Sad Pandas
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    yes yes lot of players abuse fleet shields to adapt to your weapons, you simply do the same and use both ResA and ResB weapons, but i agree its rather redundant, remove fleet shields!!!!

    Or they...uh...just use attacks that don't care about shields. :)
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • ussultimatumussultimatum Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    If we assume

    The Target has Res A Resilient (5% absorb) and opponent has Phaser weapons (15%).

    The target has EPTS 3 (30% resistance)

    The target has 125 shield power (35%).

    The target has 10 stacks of the adapt property, at 2% per stack.


    Then, the difference between MACO and a Resilient Res A shield at that point should be about 8 or 9% resistance (with Res A sitting around 69 to 70% SDR).


    The value of Res A / B vs. MACO actually becomes larger if the target has lower power and lower EPTS.

    For example, EPTS 1, 75 power would see the above example change from 8 or 9% to a difference of about 13% between MACO and Res A / B.


    I wanted to come back to this, as there is a chance that (new info, for me anyway):

    > MACO 10% vs. all is not multiplicative
    > Brings into question the possibility that Resilient Absorb 5% is also not multiplicative
    > Also brings into question the same regarding 15% from Res A or Res B.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    i'll shed some light on somethings, from my personal observations. maco shields with a power level in the 80s will get you mid 50s resistance with EPtS2, the fleet elite will give about 10 more, so its resist is in the 60s. there does appear to be some diminishing return. i used renim's resist viewer to observe this.

    also resistant shields have a hard cap of ~76.8%, not 75. at the very least that 5% they come with is not subject or maybe doesn't even count against diminishing return. im pretty sure both maco and fleet elite top out at that 76.8%.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • talzerotwotalzerotwo Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    ooooh purty fleet shields... i wants o.o
    [SIGPIC]http://tinyurl.com/msywqm5[/SIGPIC]
    Chillax. No Ego. No Drama.

    Like my alien? Watch THE VIDEO
    Need custom graphics for you or your fleet? Click HERE
  • renimaltrenimalt Member Posts: 219 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    > Brings into question the possibility that Resilient Absorb 5% is also not multiplicative

    From what I know, the 5% resilient absorption isn't treated like regular shield resist at all. Essentially, resilient shields send 90% of an incoming attack to shields, 5% of that to hull, and the remaining 5% just disappears. (Compare to normal shields, where 90% of the attack is borne by shields, and the remaining 10% hits hull.)

    Suppose you have an incoming attack that hits your resilient shields. 90% of that would hit shields (assuming the shields aren't broken by the attack). Shield resist would apply after this 90% was calculated; the actual damage your shields take is (1 - Shield Resist) * 0.9 * base damage of attack. 5% of the attack would bleed through to hull; hull resist would apply to this, so the damage the hull takes is (1 - Hull Resist) * 0.05 * base damage of attack. The remaining 5% of the attack simply vanishes.

    Resilient shields don't take less damage from an attack; they just make sure that the hull takes half as much damage as usual while the shields are up.
    Resist viewer! See shield/hull resists! Read about it here!
  • hurleybirdhurleybird Member Posts: 909
    edited March 2013
    Here's a potential compromise between fixing the current, un-fun, gameplay wrecking behavior of ResA and ResB modifiers while keeping their original design intent at a high level.


    • Get rid of the flat resistance boost that from ResA and ResB.
    • Instead, have it double the stacking speed for the associated damage types. For example, a shield with a ResA modifier would gain two stacks every time it gets hit by phasers, tetryons, or polarons, but the maximum number of stacks (and hence maximum resistance) is unchanged.
    • Alternatively, don't double the stacking speed but increase the maximum number of stacks for the associated damage type. For example, ResA will build up to a maximum of 15 stacks for phaser, tetryon, and polaron damage. Disruptor, plasma, and antiproton damage would still only build to the current maximum of 10 stacks.


    In terms of gameplay, we've kept the original intent behind the ResA and ResB mods, but brought it down to the level where players hopefully don't feel the need to change shields and weapons so often. They're about as valuable, perhaps slightly more, than another [cap] modifier, and add an interesting game-play dynamic that's hopefully (for at least one of the listed alternatives) not overly difficult to implement. This would serve to cement elite fleet shields as the de facto choice against pressure damage at the expense of some vulnerability to coordinated spike -- an interesting, fun, and balanced addition.

    Bort, if you're reading I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on either proposal.
Sign In or Register to comment.