An extra 4k hitpoints isn’t going to do anything useful to targetable torpedoes. Apart from the bugs that make destructible torpedoes next to useless the biggest problems with them is the slow speed which is the opposite of how they are in the Star Trek Show. In TOS the Enterprise couldn’t out run the High Yield Plasma torpedo which move faster-than-light. In the game the torpedo is the very opposite being so slow most things die before it hits. (then when it does hit it does zero damage due to bugs)
Anyway extra range on mines and/or extra speed on mines and destructible torpedoes would be far more useful then hit points. Or perhaps hitpoints and defense.
“Entropic Rider (Space)
Your Energy Weapons gain 2.5% chance of afflicting foes with a Physical DOT (10% chance with Projectiles)”
That balance seems massively unfair against projectiles builds. An energy based captain will have up to 8 chances of 2.5% per volley so 20% per volley. A torpedo based captain will have 10% per volley and have longer times between the volleys.
I am sorry to be rude but this is blatantly false. First a torpedoes volley is 1.5 sec or 1 sec with the right console that everyone serious about a torp build will have . A cannon volley is 3 sec and a beam volley is 4 sec long .
This is incorrect. The Terran console reduces the global cooldown for any torpedo to fire by 0.5 sec; if you fire a torpedo, you wait 0.5 seconds less to fire any other torpedo. This does NOT address the issue with firing cycles for beams (poor Overload in this case), cannons, torps, and mines. As far as the class of weapons, mines will benefit the least, closely followed by torps. Single cannons will benefit the most IF these are on a per-shot basis.
The root of this problem is the abysmally low proc rate for non-energy weapons.
Third I am sure those terran cruiser will over a million HP are really scared about that 200 damage per sec proc, like scared out of their boot they are I am sure. Maybe making sure that proc actually do something should be the first order of buisness here?
Now we're at the root of the other problem; what is the damage value of this DOT, and would it be worth it to run in the current pace of this game?
Secondly 8 chance of 2.5% doesn't equal 20% chance that's not how it work. the real chance of a proc happening is 1-( 0.975^8) that's 18.4%.
So you are saying whether or not one weapon procs, affects the chance another one procs? That makes no sense to me. These procs definitely seem independent to me.
What silversera is highlighting here **is** that the procs are independent.
Basically: there are 6 sides to a dice, but if you roll a dice 6 times in a row you won't always roll a six.
Chances that # of procs will go off, for 8 rolls at 2.5% per roll:
0 Procs: 81.665180366226%
1 Procs: 16.751831869995%
2 Procs: 1.503369526794%
3 Procs: 0.077095873169%
4 Procs: 0.002471021576%
5 Procs: 0.000050687622%
6 Procs: 0.000000649841%
7 Procs: 0.000000004761%
8 Procs: 0.000000000015%
Whenever you're dealing with lots of Proc rolls, the exact chance of getting a certain number of procs gets modelled as a Tetrahedral sequence so:
1 Procs: n+1
2 Procs: n*(n+1)/(2*1)
3 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)/(3*2*1)
4 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)/(4*3*2*1)
5 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)/(5*4*3*2*1)
etc.
[All the way up until the actual number of rolls you take which is (Roll Chance)^(Number of Rolls) ]
Modelling what is likely to happen with lots of Proc rolls over time can get rather complicated, particularly whenever a Proc triggers a stack of something and there are limits in place to the number of simultaneous active stacks you can have (Example: in the 8-procs listing above, the chance of EXACTLY one proc going off is 16.75%, but the chance that AT LEAST one proc will go off is 18.33%)
I created this spreadsheet a while back to help me visualise the proc rates for a few different things such as Disruptor Stacks with multiple potential proc sources (Because I'm a Mechanics guy not a Statistics guy, and trying to grasp something without actually seeing it happen and being able to poke at it makes my head hurt!!). It defaults to a 2.5% chance, but you can download/make a copy of the sheet and change 2.5% to a different rate if needed.
a) I will do a lot more thinking about this proc thing later.
b) Sorry, silversera. And sorry anybody else I may have ...
c) Which reminds me: Sorry Borticus about prior feedback I gave about skill trees affecting ship builds. I did see twitter post which was probably due to me. And for saying things that were ...
Comments
This is incorrect. The Terran console reduces the global cooldown for any torpedo to fire by 0.5 sec; if you fire a torpedo, you wait 0.5 seconds less to fire any other torpedo. This does NOT address the issue with firing cycles for beams (poor Overload in this case), cannons, torps, and mines. As far as the class of weapons, mines will benefit the least, closely followed by torps. Single cannons will benefit the most IF these are on a per-shot basis.
The root of this problem is the abysmally low proc rate for non-energy weapons.
Math looks good.
Now we're at the root of the other problem; what is the damage value of this DOT, and would it be worth it to run in the current pace of this game?
Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
"A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
PLEASE?!?!?
Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
"A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
What silversera is highlighting here **is** that the procs are independent.
Basically: there are 6 sides to a dice, but if you roll a dice 6 times in a row you won't always roll a six.
Chances that # of procs will go off, for 8 rolls at 2.5% per roll:
0 Procs: 81.665180366226%
1 Procs: 16.751831869995%
2 Procs: 1.503369526794%
3 Procs: 0.077095873169%
4 Procs: 0.002471021576%
5 Procs: 0.000050687622%
6 Procs: 0.000000649841%
7 Procs: 0.000000004761%
8 Procs: 0.000000000015%
Whenever you're dealing with lots of Proc rolls, the exact chance of getting a certain number of procs gets modelled as a Tetrahedral sequence so:
1 Procs: n+1
2 Procs: n*(n+1)/(2*1)
3 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)/(3*2*1)
4 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)/(4*3*2*1)
5 Procs: n*(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)/(5*4*3*2*1)
etc.
[All the way up until the actual number of rolls you take which is (Roll Chance)^(Number of Rolls) ]
Modelling what is likely to happen with lots of Proc rolls over time can get rather complicated, particularly whenever a Proc triggers a stack of something and there are limits in place to the number of simultaneous active stacks you can have (Example: in the 8-procs listing above, the chance of EXACTLY one proc going off is 16.75%, but the chance that AT LEAST one proc will go off is 18.33%)
I created this spreadsheet a while back to help me visualise the proc rates for a few different things such as Disruptor Stacks with multiple potential proc sources (Because I'm a Mechanics guy not a Statistics guy, and trying to grasp something without actually seeing it happen and being able to poke at it makes my head hurt!!). It defaults to a 2.5% chance, but you can download/make a copy of the sheet and change 2.5% to a different rate if needed.
b) Sorry, silversera. And sorry anybody else I may have ...
c) Which reminds me: Sorry Borticus about prior feedback I gave about skill trees affecting ship builds. I did see twitter post which was probably due to me. And for saying things that were ...