You have completely misunderstood me, and I have absolutely no idea how.
That highlighted portion was the exact opposite of what I was telling you to test. The test was to get rid of the 6th Universal and see how much DPS you're losing from having Saucer Sep as opposed to a 4th Tac Locator.
My apologies for misunderstanding. No problem, I have been parsing the scenario you advocate over the last two days... too few data points to reliably say yet. I'll keep you posted.
After about 20 ISA parses, I am surprised to show that adding the 4th Vulnerability Locator only offered an average of 35k DPS, peaked at 42K DPS... all PUGs. With the saucer separation console in a Tac slot, I get about 33.5K DPS in PUGs, max'd at 39K DPS. So, the Vulnerability Locator gave me an extra 5% DPS tops (on average). I Crit at about 33% rate, flank at 20%.
Not sure how you reach this. If the consoles each add the same amount of damage then you can take a few specific numbers and find a specific result.
To continue the same example as before, let's say my base damage is 100 and I can equip consoles that increase my base damage by 100%. Let's also say I'm shooting at a target with 1 million HP.
0 consoles, 100 damage per shot, takes 10k shots to kill the target (100 * 10000 = 1,000,000).
1 consoles, 200 damage per shot, takes 5k shots to kill the target ((100 * 2) * 5000 = 1,000,000).
2 consoles, 300 damage per shot, takes a bit over 3k shots to kill the target ((100 * 3) * 3333.333 ~ 1,000,000)
3 consoles, 400 damage per shot, takes 2.5k shots to kill the target ((100 * 4) * 2500 = 1,000,000)
Since each shot takes the same amount of time, there's a clear drop in efficiency in terms of kill time for each console added. If we say that those 10k shots take 1 minute of time, then 5k shots takes 30 seconds, 3.333k shots takes 20 seconds, 2.5k shots takes 15 seconds. The required number of shots to kill the target drops by 50% for the first console over none, then by about 33% from the second console over only one, etc.
WeConfusu say "so what".
While what you say is 100% mathematically true, you are so focused on "proving diminishing returns to tactical consoles" that you are overlooking the nature of the discussion.
Which is, when you are in a diminishing returns environment, the challenge becomes "is there something else that I can slot in it's stead that gives me a bigger bonus than the usually expected console"?
For engineering, a lot of times having an "optimal" mix of shield (energy) and hull (kinetic) resists are more protective, overall, than running a straight up maximized resist system. Because of the "diminishing returns" thing.
When it comes to damage, lets say that you fire a shot every .1 second. Therefore, your 3 console environment kills a target in 250 seconds, 2 consoles 300+. Since the kill is ~50 seconds quicker in 3 console than 2, obviously who cares how "inefficient" the actual gain is, quicker death is quicker.
If you find a console combination that creates deaths in 225 seconds, the first question becomes "what if you maximize the number of consoles that gave the ~75 second boost than the ~50 one"? And in every case, switching over to a full loadout of the newer consoles has proven to be the quickest kill option.
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
While what you say is 100% mathematically true, you are so focused on "proving diminishing returns to tactical consoles" that you are overlooking the nature of the discussion.
Which is, when you are in a diminishing returns environment, the challenge becomes "is there something else that I can slot in it's stead that gives me a bigger bonus than the usually expected console"?
For engineering, a lot of times having an "optimal" mix of shield (energy) and hull (kinetic) resists are more protective, overall, than running a straight up maximized resist system. Because of the "diminishing returns" thing.
When it comes to damage, lets say that you fire a shot every .1 second. Therefore, your 3 console environment kills a target in 250 seconds, 2 consoles 300+. Since the kill is ~50 seconds quicker in 3 console than 2, obviously who cares how "inefficient" the actual gain is, quicker death is quicker.
If you find a console combination that creates deaths in 225 seconds, the first question becomes "what if you maximize the number of consoles that gave the ~75 second boost than the ~50 one"? And in every case, switching over to a full loadout of the newer consoles has proven to be the quickest kill option.
^This, and the damage consoles impact output, not what damage the other ship takes (although it is a factor). There is no diminishing returns because the utility value stays the same for each additional console, its completely linear. It maintains efficiency because of its linearity.
Effectiveness can be debated (and the only factor that can really be debated), dependant on other console opportunites and build set up. If a person is good at torps and can set up a shield takedown a d a good torp volley, a torp console would be more effective than maybe a fifth energy weapon console.
While what you say is 100% mathematically true, you are so focused on "proving diminishing returns to tactical consoles" that you are overlooking the nature of the discussion.
Which is, when you are in a diminishing returns environment, the challenge becomes "is there something else that I can slot in it's stead that gives me a bigger bonus than the usually expected console"?
For engineering, a lot of times having an "optimal" mix of shield (energy) and hull (kinetic) resists are more protective, overall, than running a straight up maximized resist system. Because of the "diminishing returns" thing.
When it comes to damage, lets say that you fire a shot every .1 second. Therefore, your 3 console environment kills a target in 250 seconds, 2 consoles 300+. Since the kill is ~50 seconds quicker in 3 console than 2, obviously who cares how "inefficient" the actual gain is, quicker death is quicker.
If you find a console combination that creates deaths in 225 seconds, the first question becomes "what if you maximize the number of consoles that gave the ~75 second boost than the ~50 one"? And in every case, switching over to a full loadout of the newer consoles has proven to be the quickest kill option.
Try reading my other posts in this thread before jumping to conclusions. I acknowledge that there's rarely a better choice for a Tactical console slot than a Vulnerability Tactical console (Locator or Exploiter depending on intention) and I think that's a problem. This game has become too damage centered. The opportunity cost of equipping Universal consoles almost always comes from Engineering and Science console slots because damage is too precious, there's no reason to try to stack additional defenses or utility (at least in PvE, I can't speak for PvP).
The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.
Comments
My apologies for misunderstanding. No problem, I have been parsing the scenario you advocate over the last two days... too few data points to reliably say yet. I'll keep you posted.
WeConfusu say "so what".
While what you say is 100% mathematically true, you are so focused on "proving diminishing returns to tactical consoles" that you are overlooking the nature of the discussion.
Which is, when you are in a diminishing returns environment, the challenge becomes "is there something else that I can slot in it's stead that gives me a bigger bonus than the usually expected console"?
For engineering, a lot of times having an "optimal" mix of shield (energy) and hull (kinetic) resists are more protective, overall, than running a straight up maximized resist system. Because of the "diminishing returns" thing.
When it comes to damage, lets say that you fire a shot every .1 second. Therefore, your 3 console environment kills a target in 250 seconds, 2 consoles 300+. Since the kill is ~50 seconds quicker in 3 console than 2, obviously who cares how "inefficient" the actual gain is, quicker death is quicker.
If you find a console combination that creates deaths in 225 seconds, the first question becomes "what if you maximize the number of consoles that gave the ~75 second boost than the ~50 one"? And in every case, switching over to a full loadout of the newer consoles has proven to be the quickest kill option.
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
^This, and the damage consoles impact output, not what damage the other ship takes (although it is a factor). There is no diminishing returns because the utility value stays the same for each additional console, its completely linear. It maintains efficiency because of its linearity.
Effectiveness can be debated (and the only factor that can really be debated), dependant on other console opportunites and build set up. If a person is good at torps and can set up a shield takedown a d a good torp volley, a torp console would be more effective than maybe a fifth energy weapon console.
Try reading my other posts in this thread before jumping to conclusions. I acknowledge that there's rarely a better choice for a Tactical console slot than a Vulnerability Tactical console (Locator or Exploiter depending on intention) and I think that's a problem. This game has become too damage centered. The opportunity cost of equipping Universal consoles almost always comes from Engineering and Science console slots because damage is too precious, there's no reason to try to stack additional defenses or utility (at least in PvE, I can't speak for PvP).
The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.