test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

reconsider EPS and DPS drain

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Lore-wise there is no DPS drain while firing. There is capacitor energy drain. When an arc has drained another one fires if alligned with the target.
Cruiser have many arcs means they can easily tank something, while escorts come in fast discharging their capacitor and then run for a recharge. Using rapid fire discharges it even quicker. This means no tanking for escorts, which is intended. A ten seconds recharge would be ok for me but no DPS drain while firing.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The system currently being tested on Tribble will be the 2nd time the EPS/DPS system has been changed in the game. I don't think it'll be the last time as players always have a way of finding exploits. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Star Trek ships appear to only have one capacitor: we never hear the engineer say "not enough power on the port side, but plenty on the starboard side".

    In Wok, when asked if there was power to phasers, the reply was 'not enough to get through their shields', which implies that weapon power does affect DPS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    After playing around on Tribble I can't really see what the fuss is about, as energy drain didn't seem any different due to being compensated by the way the weapons fire.

    My concerns were more about the recharge times on BO skills, which were to long in my opinion. That and dedicated weapon consoles (by energy type) were the same as the generic ones by model (e.g. cannons and beams). They might as well just remove them all and have a single generic console. The system still does howver penalize those mixing beams and turrets/cannons, unless the dedicate themselves to a single energy type.

    I can understand the nerf to tac consoles, as Escorts are currently overpowered when it comes to dps. I don't agree with the generic consoles having the same bonus as those of dedicated energy types, as one would have likely invested skill points to gain that focus. Plus many have spent a fortune on purchasing Antiproton ones. I'd have placed them at +18 and +20, so that the difference wasn't huge but still a benefit to a degree. I'd have also changed the rare and very rate dedicated ones to be +25 and +30, while making them rare drops.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Usually all Fed ships have one warp core (main energy source) and 4 top saucer and 4 lower saucer arrays, each equipped with their own capacitor, being recharged when not in use and even while being used, but drain is higher than recharge. So the captain turns the ship in order to get his "fresh" arrays alligned with the enemy. That's why we can see only one beam being fired at a time but much more poweful than the plenty beams we got here. Seeing a dual beam array firing from the warp gondolas of an advanced escort doesn't look too well either, lol.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The current change on Tribble makes it better for players than it is now. At least in regards to EPS consoles, weapons energy drain and power subsystem switching.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Naevius wrote:
    In Wok, when asked if there was power to phasers, the reply was 'not enough to get through their shields', which implies that weapon power does affect DPS.

    Half right. The full dialogue was:

    Kirk: "Scotty, can you get me phaser power?"
    Scott: "A few shots, Sir."
    Spock: "Not enough to get through their shields."

    Meaning that while they had the ability to fire phasers, the number of times they could fire before the system was completely drained, wasn't enough to penetrate the Reliant's shields. The amount of power didn't have anything to do with the damage of each shot.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    However thet get around to it, increased damage output due to specials, and to a lesser extent due ti skill points, should increase Weapon's EPS drain. The mistake they made was trying to make escort survival hinge on putting out more damage than thier opponent...whih led to an easily abused exploit in the game mechanics. Instead, they should have hinged an escort's survival on taking less damage over time than thier opponent by bolstering their defense assets of speed and maneuvering.

    Instead of making Escorts kill everything so fast(putting out and most importantly inflicting significantly more damage within a period of time than their opponent), they should have made it harder to kill escorts by increasing their dodge rates so that escorts put out comparable, though still likly more, damage compared to their opponents within a given period of time. The key is modeling the damage escorts recieved significantly less than that of their opponent over the same period of time...provided the escorts kept moving at high rates of speed.

    In my opinion, the Escort should a tad bit higher DPS/sustained damage output as a Cruiser when viewed over time...the escort should certainly have a significantly higher burst output than a Cruiser. But of course the Cruiser should have the defense resilience to take the bursts and either repair it or mitigate it with resists in the first place(something we generally werent able to do as of late...too many and too high crits, excessive buff and debuff by the escorts, etc)...which wasnt happening when you could be dropped to no shields and little to no hull in a blink of an eye(2-3 salvos of rapid fire).

    Escorts should survive becuase they blow us outof the water before one could respond...one should be able to respond to the damage recieved. The escort should survive because he is able to remain in combat due to our difficulty in landing our attacks when the escort is remaining mobile.

    Lastly, escort defense/dodge rate shuldnt just be tied to speed for this to work at its best...it should also take into account the ship's relative movemnt through the firing arcs. This means escorts moving at high speeds directly to or from their opponent's firing arc should have a reduced dodge rate compared to one with relative motion that is tangentially to their opponent's arc.
    RCSlyman wrote: »
    Meaning that while they had the ability to fire phasers, the number of times they could fire before the system was completely drained, wasn't enough to penetrate the Reliant's shields. The amount of power didn't have anything to do with the damage of each shot.

    Im not sure how you came to this conclusion. It could have been insufficent shots/energy to get through shields at a fixed damage output for each shot...or it could have been insufficent shots/energy to get through shields as the drain siginificantly reduced the damage output and effectiveness of each successive shot until depletion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Im not sure how you came to this conclusion. It could have been insufficent shots/energy to get through shields at a fixed damage output for each shot...or it could have been insufficent shots/energy to get through shields as the drain siginificantly reduced the damage output and effectiveness of each successive shot until depletion.

    Based on what was said in that specific scene, the first conclusion is the most fitting.

    Now, there's other places in TNG era and on, that phaser efficiency IS said to be affected when there's a lack of power. I can look for specific examples, as none are immediately coming to mind, but I do know it has been said in some episodes.

    It was just the wrong example to use, that was all.
Sign In or Register to comment.