test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Tactical consoles, no diminishing returns?
ufpterrell
Member Posts: 736 Arc User
Is it true that tactical consoles, like phaser relays don't give diminishing returns like hull resistance consoles etc? How come this is the case when engineering and science consoles do?
Post edited by ufpterrell on
0
Comments
If my understanding is correct.
yer thatts my understanding of how and why there work
100% correct assesment.
science consoles don't have diminishing return either...when adding 20 to particle generator you will add x amount of dmg to an ability that corresponds to that skill.
if you add 40 to particle generator you get 2 times X amount of damage. they scale linear.
only armor needs a diminishing return so you can't reach 100% resistance, which means invulnerability.
imo, however stacking tac consoles (and the tac slots a ship can have) is making the tac console section kind of dull.
if you were only allowed a max of 2, or 3 consoles of the same type you could make console seeups much more interesting in sto.
No. You understanding is wrong. The form of the formulae that Cryptic uses for a lot of their game mechanics are:
net = base / ( 1 + ( <attrib total> / 100 )) for reductions (like Damage Resistance )
-and-
net = base x ( 1 + ( <attrib total> / 100 )) for increases (like Damage)
Those are basic diminishing return formulae. But the curves are quite shallow with the numbers we use in the game. However, you can't ever reach 100% damage reduction. There isn't enough Neutronium in the universe.
In the case of STO hull Damage Resistance, Cryptic uses a formula which has 75% as the limit. The DR curve approaches but never reaches 75% as you approach infinitely (Data Resistance Rating). See "Damage Resistance" on http://sto.gamepedia.com/
I'm not saying everything is driven by the fomulae I posted. but quite a bit of the game is. Your are correct the amount of the attribute, or rating as Cryptic apparently puts it, is indeed linear. Science Consoles and Damage Consoles do add to the appropriate Captain's skills, attribute buffs, etc. But the net results are drive by those formula. Put another way +50 damage rating is not going to give your +50% increase in damage (unless you are in the starter ship with Standard Weapons).
But it will and does give exactly that, and it's +30% not 50. Once those consoles are added then everything else is figured including the MK and rarity that gives you the end result. The end result rises but the % added is not based off that so it gives the apearance that it is not giving the full amount. That is what decieves people into believing that tac consoles have a diminishing return.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Because the resists diminish a % of the total damage.
You're thinking the tac consoles exist in a vacuum, they do not, they are balanced out by the resists lowering the damage they contributed to. If they were to add diminishing returns to tac consoles they would make the diminishing return on resist consoles hit even harder. Its not a tac vs engi console contest, its an issue of how much damage the devs mean to get through.
Before people start btching over the semantics of the term "diminishing returns", just remember this:
Never hesitate to stack tac consoles.
It's not even +30%. It's adding +30 into the damage rating which includes other damage consoles, the mark of the weapon, the mark of the ship, Dmg attributes, non-damage attributes, Captain Skills (Starship Weapons Training, Starship Energy|Projectile Weapons), etc. All of those number geting added up in to the Total Damage Rating for that particular weapon at that particular point in time. And then it get plugged into this foruma.
base weapon damage x ( 1 + ( Total Damage Rating / 100 )) == Net Weapon Damage
I'l not pulling that out of thin air. That comes directly from Al "Captain Geko" Rivera. And so we are on the same page, I define diminishing returns as I increase a parameter by +X and I get an a net increase of +Y. If chance the increase to +2X, my increase is < +2Y. Any further increases of +X, yields less of an net improvement over the previous increases.
Edit: In my enthusiasm for an argument, I fail to see that we are really saying the same thing. Except your not realizing that damage is a diminishing return curve. It's just not as steep of a curve as is the damage resistance curve.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Say your ship has zero damage resistance. An attacker shoots you for 1000 damage and you take 1000 damage. This is 100% survivability. If your ship has 25% damage resistance, then the incoming damage is reduced by 25%, which means in order to inflict 1000 damage on you the attacker needs to actually come to the fight with 1,333 damage. Because a quarter of it simply disappears into nothing and he needs to compensate for that missing chunk. 25% damage resistance increases the total amount of damage needed to kill you by a third, in other words, 25% resistance (ship stat) corresponds roughly to a stack of +33% survivability (console stat).
It's easier to conceptualize if you go to 50% resistance. 50% resist means the attacker must start with twice as much damage to kill you. 50% resistance is 200% survivability: if you take half as much damage, you can absorb twice as many hits.
Again. There is a diminishing returns mechanic, but it's not nearly as bad as it looks. IIRC: if you have 4 layers of mark 11 neutronium, the 4th one is functioning at about half its basic effectiveness.
(For trivia, the maximum you can attain is 75% resistance/400% survivability)
A diminishing return is when the second and every consequent piece of gear gives less then what it would give if by itself
For example...
2 consoles have tool tips stating that they give +2 to engines.
You equip both but only get +3 to engines instead of +4.
The second console is halved due to the mmo's version of diminishing returns.
Stacking is when the second and every consequent piece of gear gives the same boost regardless of how many are equipped
For example...
2 consoles have tool tips stating that they give +2 to engines.
You equip both and get +4 to engines.
No diminishing returns, therefore the limits are how much you can find, how much you can equip, and if there is a cap
Tactical consoles have no diminishing returns. Each console gives the same as the one before it.
This is how diminishing returns and stacking are understood in all mmos. Best to just accept it, instead of bringing the real world equivalent into the argument.
You can argue against the above; it doesn't matter, that is the fact of how those two terms are utilized. And it is rather easy to understand by the masses
My PvE/PvP hybrid skill tree
Cause Cryptic loves Escorts and hates everyone else.
It means the only sensible build is to pile in as many consoles that boost the energy damage type you are using as you are able, you want as many consoles working on as many weapons as possible.
This has several undesirable effects on the game. First, it makes all Tac consoles except for the ones that boost an energy damage type pretty much useless - it even has a knock on effect on other console types, you pretty much have to fill all Tac console slots with damage boosting consoles so an universal consoles you have to make room for in science or engineering.
Next, as you have all these Tac consoles of one type fitted, there is a huge disadvantage to fitting weapons that do any other type of damage. All these reputation and lobi store special weapons that the devs keep adding - unless you build your ship around the same type of damage there is a huge disincentive to use them. You are even discouraged from fitting torpedoes, what's the point of fitting a torpedo if you have five consoles boosting energy damage.
I think if Tac consoles had a penalty if you fitted more than one of the same type it would encourage much more varied builds, you would have the space to boost more than one type of damage, or boost torpedo damage too, plus it would help cut the problem of some 5 Tac slot ships doing what I assume is far higher damage than intended.
This discussion pops up every couple of months, and I always post similar comments. I get why the devs have dim returns on armor consoles, it does no good for game balance or enjoyability to have a bunch of perfect tanks running around (besides it's just not canon to have indestructible ships). However, I simply don't understand why tac consoles (heck, all consoles) aren't subject to the same mechanics. From a logical, "real-world" perspective, having multiple redundant systems will naturally result in inefficiencies; tac consoles should be no different.
Personally, I favor a stacking cap (say 3 of any tac console) similar to active roster doffs. That way, the minmax'ers and "professional" pvp'ers still get their linear tac stacking to a certain extent, it just forces them to be creative with their remaining tac slots.
This would invariably lead to more diverse builds (leading to more balance), a little less volatility in exchange console pricing and more demand and utilization of reputation and alternative set items that give boosts to a particular energy type.
Pretty much ^this^.
I'm gonna guess PvPers wouldn't dig these changes. And since PvPers have the devoted attention a couple of deva, the outcry would get attention.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.