Dilithium mine warp cores vs. Spire Plasma Integrated warp cores

studleydoo

Hi folks,

Wondering which warp core is better for a cruiser beam boat. Dilithium mine warp cores or Spire Plasma integrated warp cores.

Dilithium mine cores give power bonus to one subsystem and increase in max for a subsystem.

Spire Plasma integrated warp cores have a resistance to power drain and increase in power regeneration.

Both cores can have other features as [AMP]. So which is the better option for a tactical DPS cruiser beam boat.

eradicator84

Plasma cores if you have a tac bent. The weapons drain resist really helps on 8 beam boats.

Mine cores are better for just about everything else imo, like tanking, boosting speed, boosting sci via aux, or shields etc etc simply because they give the extra subsystem power level boosts over the Plasma cores.

Essentialy, DPS = Plasma cores, everything else, mine cores.

woodwhity

Mine-Cores are currently a bit better than plasmacores, dps and otherwise.
Some of the h-dpsers tested them thouruly, and came to that conclusion. Plasma sounds nice, but since you can overcap, weapon energy drain shouldnt be much of an issue anyways.

rodentmaster

Question: I have an 8-beam broadsider with AP BAs. I swapped out a rear BA with the 360-omni AP beam and run the Obelisk warp core for the AP boost bonus. This is an ENG-heavy cruiser where I'm running EPTS and EPTW nonstop and run FAW1 and APB2 as often as needed.



Would switching to Plasma core give me more damage vs sticking with the Obelisk?

Also, I know overcapping helps with FAW/beams but what about Beam Overload? Would it [a plasma core] help if you wanted to try that more often? Assuming you don't have 10million ECs to buy a certain DOFF that some folks use to prevent BO drainage.

woodwhity

10million, where are you coming from? 80%-discount-planet?

Well, it would help with BO too, but then again BO gimps your dps and is more or less only viable for pvp. The resistences are calculated as Base/(1+sum of bonuses), so BO takes 50 Energie, you add a core, making it take 50/1.15=43,x=44 Energie, combined with a cruiser command it even takes less.


But 2pc-Obelisk are likely to give you more bonus, except you have really big issues with faw-powerdrain, but even then I would suggest just overcapping more.

rodentmaster

Thanks. For that ship I'll stick with the obilesk core. My other ships don't use AP but use it just because it's better than most (and was free!). I'm still grinding fleet levels to get elite cores to replace it. I was going to go [AMP] but now am looking at the two new types (regen power faster or slow down power drain) as they may be better in the long run.

frtoaster

woodwhity wrote: »

Well, it would help with BO too, but then again BO gimps your dps and is more or less only viable for pvp. The resistences are calculated as Base/(1+sum of bonuses), so BO takes 50 Energie, you add a core, making it take 50/1.15=43,x=44 Energie, combined with a cruiser command it even takes less.

Testing by dragonsbite indicated that the drain resistance granted by the cruiser command "Weapon System Efficiency" works differently from the drain resistance granted by plasma-integrated warp cores.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1041091

dragonsbite wrote: »

Note that the formula for weapon power cost/drain resistance appears to be the following.

Weapon power drain=(P/(1+WC))*(1-R)
where P=weapon power cost
where WC=weapons command for 25% less weapon power cost
where R=resistance rate % of all power levels

To confirm the math for weapon command here's 2 weapons i tested.
beam array
10/(1+25%)=8 Note this matches the weapon tooltip
dual heavy cannon
12/(1+25%)=9.6 Note this matches the weapon tooltip

With the warp core of 10% and weapons command of 25% reduced cost we now have the following.

beam array=(10/(1+25%))*(1-10%)=7.2 Note the extra 10% resist is not indicated on the weapon tooltip.

For FAW you treat it the same as autofiring except add 2.5 per weapon at the end. So that each beams looks like;

beam array=(10/(1+25%))*(1-10%)+2.5=9.7 It's the only thing i could come up with.

woodwhity

I know, thats why I didnt put it explicitly in the formula. And because the difference is so miniscule, the merrit of a easy to remember formula outweights the correct formula in my opinion.