Yeah I was thinking of that too, but I don't want any bad blood in a thread supposed to be informative, that's all. And also, if I may be honest lol, in the vain hope that someone will sticky it. It's 4 pages long lol.
In other words he wants HIS thread stickied so people will think he's all knowing. This is all about his ego & his responses show it. I see this behaviour all the time in game. The wiki isn't hard to understand, using forum search isn't hard either.
@organicmanfred. I'm okay now. It's not about not understanding something, but being accused of not having read the wiki that really upset me. I spent a few hours reading the wiki in the last few days, so my anger, in my opinion, was understandable. Put yourself in my place after spending hours looking through it.
There is a game I have been playing since the late 90's, and if you were new in that game and then I accused you of not reading the wiki, how would you feel? It's insulting. You assumed I did not read it - instead of assuming I might not have understood it.
Don't get me wrong, it's always nice having a wiki, but like anything else, if it's not created properly for EVERYONE to be able to understand it, then in my very, very, very personal opinion, why have a wiki that caters only to those who have been playing for a long time? Should a wiki not actually contain the answers of the questions of those who have much less experience. That's my opinion. You might agree or disagree, and that's fine.
I did not rant in my original post, it was genuinely a query. So, I do not understand why you call it a rant. If it was a rant, why would I have bothered to format the whole thing? People who rant, won't do that. I was genuinely trying to get more information which I could not find.
Lastly, I never called you a bad person. I just NEVER let anyone think they can walk on me. Never. It's not in my nature, I always fight back. Always. I also give credit when it's due, even when I'm having an argument with someone.
@virusdancer, that's a low behaviour in my very, very honest opinion. Like organicmanfred, you assumed I did not read the wiki. It is STILL my opinion that the wiki is improperly documented. So, the fact that YOU judged my perception is very low. I don't respect that at all, but I do respect the fact that you were actually honest about it. I honestly cannot believe that you would judge someone's perception of the wiki, merely because for you the wiki answers questions. For me, it really does not. Either I don't fully understand what is in the wiki in some instances, or there is missing a lot of information.
If you did contribute to the wiki, then I am sorry, but it is missing A LOT of elements. But even without your help, I have created a document which I will upload here when I have the time, in a new thread.
If you read the wiki, why would you have posted this:
as the wiki explains nothing at all in this regard. And I mean, nothing.
When this page includes everything I mentioned, except for the variants? It has some holes and older information (still listing Cardassian ships as using Phasers, when they use Spiral-Wave Disruptors), but clearly lists the main energy types, their procs, and the armor that defends against them. It's definitely not nothing, and normal reading comprehension should lead one towards understanding the basic differences between the standard energy types.
More helpful than deriding the wiki as useless would be to explain why you couldn't understand the wiki as opposed to the forum posts.
All that stuff is fascinating and all, but has basically zero applicability to the endgame.
Let's concentrate on the basics:
What do weapon types do? Most weapon types have a side effect, ranging from deadly to annoying. Let's go over how you protect against them:
Phaser: Subsystem Repair
Polaroid, Tetryon: Power Insulators
Plasma: Hazard Emitters
Disruptor, Antiproton: No counter or cleanse.
All weapon types, of course, cause damage to you, and all are the same in this regard. Outside of specific pieces of equipment that resist specific types, there is only one defense against this: Do unto others before they do unto you.
In other words he wants HIS thread stickied so people will think he's all knowing. This is all about his ego & his responses show it. I see this behaviour all the time in game. The wiki isn't hard to understand, using forum search isn't hard either.
No, the thread credits everyone where it's sourced from. You're a complete a-hole dude, seriously. Both of these are my thread, so perhaps you should consider that what you said makes no sense. In neither case, why would I credit myself for other people's work? It is CLEARLY credited in the thread.
Instead of posting for no reason, be quiet dude. Instead of criticizing, you should perhaps look at the new thread and thank me for combining what everyone said in a coherent thread that newer players can enjoy. But hey, if you want to be an a-hole, don't think I'm gonna let you TRIBBLE all over me, because I will not. Instead of trolling around for no reason, shut up.
On this, have a nice day.
@doffingcomrade, endgame??? Who's speaking of the endgame? This is NOT for veterans who knows exactly what type is or does. We are talking about newbs, people relatively new to the game - a few months or so. Not the endgame at all.
If you read the wiki, why would you have posted this:
When this page includes everything I mentioned, except for the variants? It has some holes and older information (still listing Cardassian ships as using Phasers, when they use Spiral-Wave Disruptors), but clearly lists the main energy types, their procs, and the armor that defends against them. It's definitely not nothing, and normal reading comprehension should lead one towards understanding the basic differences between the standard energy types.
More helpful than deriding the wiki as useless would be to explain why you couldn't understand the wiki as opposed to the forum posts.
Bro, seriously, leave it. Leave that damn original post alone, please. I am honestly getting tired of having to defend myself because you guys think I be should be apologetic. I am not and won't be. I have the right to my opinion about the wiki. So, just drop it man.
The wiki IS incomplete, doesn't explain the things that you and shurato2099 explain. Trust me, the wiki in no way tells us nor explains to us the answers I was looking for. I'm not gonna apologize for believing that. I WILL NOT.
I do greatly appreciate what you have said and contributed to, and trust me, newbs will PREFER that thread over the wiki when it comes to explaining what shurato2099 and yourself have so damn well explained. It's not because the wiki is empty of information, but rather because the thread gives the information in a way that allows the newb to understand much more easily. When you keep seeing 2.5%, buff, debuff and all that TRIBBLE, that's not newb talk. That is veteran talk.
I want newb talk when I read something! Like a lot of other newbs. Everyone so far who commented on the new thread seems to say that it's well documented. So, look at it and please tell me it's utter TRIBBLE. We both know it will help newbs, because it explains it in a way that makes us feel that we can understand what's written. The thread will be modified some more in the near future to have more information.
"There are six different Energy Damage types, each having a bonus effect, known as a Proc. Most weapons come with one of these bonuses, while some rarer weapons may contain multiple.
Direct energy Ship Weapons, such as Beams and Cannons, use Energy Damage. Deployable Ship Devices such as Satellite Turrets also deal Energy Damage based on the type of weapon it carries.
Most Ground Weapons deal Energy Damage, and include Pistols, Rifles, and Assault Weapons. Some deployable Turrets through the use of Kits can also deal Energy Damage, depending on the turret used.
There are tactical advantages to using a single energy damage type primarily due to consoles giving a greater bonus by energy type (e.g. phasers) than by weapon type (e.g. beam arrays). However, some players prefer to use a wide variety of damage types in the hopes of scoring multiple proc hits."
"Kinetic damage is dealt by explosive devices of various kinds. In addition to the Kinetic Damage, these weapons often have secondary effects, in some cases dealing additional Energy Damage or Exotic Damage to the target in a single hit or as a DoT or AoE.
In space, Kinetic Damage is dealt by torpedoes launched from Torpedo Launchers and deployable Torpedo Platforms, Mines deployed from Mine Launchers, and by using certain abilities.
On the ground, Kinetic Damage is dealt by Mines, Bombs and Mortar type turrets deployable by the use of Kits, and Grenades thrown by using Kits or abilities.
Kinetic Damage is more effective against armor than shields, and there is a dedicated resistance against Kinetic Damage.
Note: Melee attacks such as martial arts or with the Bat'leth do NOT count as Kinetic damage."
"Kinetic Weapons do full damage to a starship's hull but shields have an innate 75% resistance to kinetic weapons, though some types of kinetic weapons have improved shield penetration."
There are multiple types of Cannons: Dual Cannons, Dual Heavy Cannons, Quad Cannons, Single Cannons/Cannons, Single Heavy Cannons, Turrets, Heavy Turrets. There are multiple types of Beams: Beam Array, Dual Beam Bank, Beam "Turret".
Such a broad statement cannot be made without taking into account a number of factors.
"Keep your target within the firing arc of your weapons. Escorts and Birds-of-Prey should bring forward weapons to bear, whereas Cruisers should keep the broadside facing the target."
While it is partially opinion - the part of keeping the target in the firing arc of your weapons should be common sense. There are folks that fly slowboats with certain Cannons, cause they're parking and shooting at a slow target. There are folks that fly fastboats with Beam Arrays, cause they just like to fly around going wheeee! (Okay, no - that may be part of it - but there's also the defense aspect to take into consideration - the use of FAW to hit multiple targets that are spread out - it can get complex.)
The only real difference between the various energy types is their special proc ability which, at a 2.5% per "shot" rate really doesn't come up but so often and is more of an issue for the min-maxers. As I understand it you can slightly increase the shield drain proc from Tetryon weapons and the subsystem power drain of Polaron weapons by increasing your Flow Capacitors skill, either in the skill tree or through the use of various pieces of gear.
*'Proc' is short for 'process', it's the extra effect of the various weapon types that only occur, or process, every so often.
Proc can mean different things to different folks. For some, it's "process" for some "procedure" for some "programmed random occurrence", etc, etc, etc.
"A proc in Star Trek Online and other MMOs is a term used to describe a special effect or bonus that is activated on a piece of equipment, generally with a low percentage chance to happen. It is short for the common programming term procedure. Many younger people often tend to want to interpret terms that are unfamiliar to them as acronyms and as such want to backronym the term proc as being for "Programmed Random Occurrence", but that is not the origin of the term.
An example of a proc would be the 2.5% chance bonuses that are applied to starship weapons, such as a Beam Array."
Antiproton doesn't have a proc but instead had increased critical severity inherently which makes it the weapon of choice for Captains with a high critical hit rate.
Includes an opinion. Weapon of choice is a complex matter.
Antiproton and the new Protonic weapons have effects based on critical hits rather than the usual proc rate. Antiproton does more crit damage, Protonic have some shield bypassing damage. Right nowthere are only a few weapons that do Protonic damage, the Proton weapon from the Dyson Sphere reputation system, the Proton cannons on the new Dyson hybrid ships and the Protonic Polaron weapons also from the Dyson rep system.
Could go through the rest, but it's all a mix of incomplete/incorrect information sprinkled with opinions...where the correct information can be found from:
So as you can see, outside of the incorrect information and opinions...you've offered nothing that's not already there on the wiki.
Thus, your surprise and anger that people do not believe that you even looked at the wiki is kind of baffling...when again, outside of incorrect information and opinions - you've offered nothing that's not already there on the wiki. Hell, almost all of it on just three pages on the wiki.
I will look at your post when I have the time. After briefly glancing at it, I do thank you for posting what seems to be helpful information. And will modify any info that needs to be modified accordingly. Thank you.
BTW, I'm neither a contributor to STOwiki nor a blind defender of it. Most of my beef with it though, comes down to some of the number crunching things...and...well, stuff that I could probably take info that others have provided to become a contributor to the wiki.
IMHO, needs to be updated to reflect the current game terminology of Damage Resistance Rating. It should include information on the Rep Passives/Traits that affect it (like dragonsbite pointing out how things work akin to the shield damage reduction formula after you've gone through the damage resistance rating to damage resistance conversion). It should also include information on how debuffs affect damage resistance.
There's good and bad there...it's not perfect by any means, but it does cover most of the basics fairly well - the things that one might see most players caring about. The nitty gritty spreadsheet warrior stuff...heh, not so much.
Let's take the weapons page. This is what I see - let me break it for you, because I am getting tired of you guys NOT understanding what I'm saying.
Phaser damage is displayed as orange in color, or sometimes pale yellow. The Andorian version is a blue color. The term "phaser" is an acronym for Phased Energy Rectification. Player-acquired starships for the Federation by default come with Phaser energy weapons.
Energy bonus: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 seconds (Space) / 5% Chance: +2 Hold (Ground)
Shields and armor with the [Pha] suffix modifier take 20% less Phaser damage than usual.
This is what I see:
Some 2.5% number crunching, ok. Disables a subsystem, ok, sure. Should I actually care about that? How important is it? The thing about the [Pha], I get it, okay simple that one. But, what about what the weapon does in different situations? Are we talking about this particular energy type being better in a dogfight? Or on the ground? Are we talking about it being better than another weapon type? Are we talking about the weapon doing more damage in the same situation another weapon would? Is there a way to prevent or heal a system falling offline if hit by said weapon? And so on, an so on.
Yeah I go to different places in the wiki, but at some point, your questions either becomes unanswered OR you miss it at some point after hours of looking for stuff. The information whether opinionated or somewhat skewed (a possibility) was made coherently available by shurato2099 and slightly by mandoknight89. To be sure, their answers don't answer everything, but it's a damn great start!
That gets into opinions. Those opinions tend to be dissenting.
Player A may find that Energy X is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
Player B may find that Energy Y is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
Player C may find that Energy Z is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
With Phasers, could they add a bit that tells a person to check out Subsystem Repair to reduce the duration?
"This skill reduces the amount of time it takes for a disabled subsystem to come back on-line."
Or is it a case that they might have assumed that folks have looked through the skills first?
That would be a thing where I would agree they shouldn't assume such a thing.
edit: erroneous info about Disruptor procs removed
But like I said, STOwiki's not perfect by any means - but it's generally not difficult to find info on the forums if it is not at the wiki. Like doing a search for: Tetryon proc :returns all sorts of informative threads discussing the weapons.
And a lot of it will get into opinion...going back to the different players and different weapons, etc, etc, etc.
It's also going to get into scenarios...and...is it really a case of wanting to overwhelm a new player with countless scenarios? Consider Tetryon again.
vs. mobs with no shields, well - that proc is useless.
vs. mobs that are likely obliterated before the proc happens, well - that proc is near useless.
vs. mobs with shields and not given to being instapopped, well - that proc could be useful
vs. players, are they getting shield heals out the wahzoo?
Are the Tet weapons being used overall to boost a shield killing build? Why would somebody run such a thing? What might be involved in that?
What about the different types of Tet weapons? Are there any other weapons that might be helpful in such a situation? What about Phasers? They've got a chance with their proc to drop the shield facing completely...that's pretty nifty, eh? What about Polarons? With that drop in Shield Power, you're going to reduce Shield Damage Reduction and Shield Regeneration. Heck, there are Phased Polarons! There's also going to be Elite Disruptors which have a "Shield Disruptor" proc which reduces Shield Damage Reduction and increases Shield Damage. Nanite Disruptors have a dual proc that reduces Hull Damage Resistance and increases the amount of Shield Penetration/Bleedthrough. If the goal is to zero the hull to destroy the target, that could be good too - right? Then there's also the Rep Passive that increases Bleedthrough/Shield Penetration. There are DOFFs that can. If we're going that route, why not look at the Elachi Crescent weapons which have a chance to ignore shields and part of the hull damage resistance to chew away at the hull. Protonic weapons? Bio-molecular Phasers and Disruptors? Both have that extra hull hitting damage potential...
It goes on and on and on and on...the sheer number of possible combinations out there - and...Heck, how about that as well, eh?
With the Advanced Tactical Vulnerability Locator/Exploiter consoles, we saw a closing of the difference between Specific and Generic consoles (Specific = single energy type, Generic = single weapon category type (torps, mines, cannons, beams)).
With Very Rare Mk XII Tac Consoles, the difference between a Specific and a Generic was 10% base damage (the discussion of how damage is calculated is a-whole-nother conversation). Specifics have +30% and Generics have +20%.
With the Advanced on the other hand, though - you're looking at Specifics with +31.9% and Generics with +27.9% instead. So instead of a 10% difference per console, you're looking at a 4% difference per console. And again, that's base damage...not just damage.
So where folks used to ridicule Rainbow Builds (mixed energy types), while it's still not quite as good as a single type for strict damage - it's not as bad as it once was. It also opens the door to possibilities for some of the hybrids where one can get by without reducing their overall probability for a proc chance.
Consider 8x Phaser Beam Arrays, eh? 4x Phased Polaron Beam Arrays and 4x Bio-Molecular Phaser Beam Arrays would allow one to keep the same probability to land a Phaser proc while introducing the additional probability (not as high as the Phaser) of Polaron procs as well as the new B-M proc with reduced flight speed and radiation damage. That's just one example. But yes, they'll be doing 4% less base damage per console. Heck, even that's not necessarily quite right - because we can't really ignore that whole discussion of how damage is calculated. That 4% will be modified by later modifiers. @125 Weapon Power, that 4% is actually 10% base damage. Throw in the new T2 Omega (not the current one, but the one on Tribble), Emergency Power to Weapons 1, and Attack Pattern Omega 1 (with 9 in Starship Attack Patterns, yep - have to work a skill in there somewhere)...and we're now looking at 14.5% base damage lost per console!
That's horrendous, right? 14.5% base damage gone???? Base damage for a Beam Array is 100. Yeah, you've lost 14.5 damage per volley. Oh, no doubt it can add up eventually. Heck, with a Beam Overload 3 and some other buffs - you might even lose 100 damage per console.
Just how much info does the new player need thrown at them at once...and how much should be available spread about as they feel they need - as the question arises sort of thing? Cause honestly, we're talking stuff that folks pick up over weeks, months, years - something that's changing every few months. With some of the changes on Tribble for S9, stuff that folks have been sharing since they came out with S7 will no longer be the case.
So maybe we do a search for: disruptor cleanse :on the forums (by post, not by thread). The sixth item returned is a post with the following in it...
"TT cleanses APB, APD, the myriad of Disruptor procs, Penetration, and just oh so many things that will cause a person from being there one moment and gone the next..."
Aha, so TT cleanses Disruptor procs.
We see that again in the 13th item returned by that search...
"Even when it comes to the cleanse element, TT blows the other two away when you look at the sheer amount of debuffs that TT will cleanse compared to the other two.
APB, APD, FoMM, Disruptor Procs (including oodles of variations), EWO BO+Pen, etc, etc, etc...with all that stacking goodness."
Honestly, I didn't expect them to be my posts...though honestly, I did just click on my name in those replies (surprised to see it as much).
I honestly hadn't heard before that the Disruptor procs are cleansed by Tac Team. Is there a source for that? Did you test it? Debuff cleansing documentation is really annoying since it's mostly word-of-mouth, particularly with more subtle debuffs like the Disruptor procs. APB/APD/FOMM/Boarding Party/Plasma burn are obvious when cleared because there's a major graphic on your ship that goes away, but there's nothing like that for Disruptors.
I honestly hadn't heard before that the Disruptor procs are cleansed by Tac Team. Is there a source for that? Did you test it? Debuff cleansing documentation is really annoying since it's mostly word-of-mouth, particularly with more subtle debuffs like the Disruptor procs. APB/APD/FOMM/Boarding Party/Plasma burn are obvious when cleared because there's a major graphic on your ship that goes away, but there's nothing like that for Disruptors.
You're right. It doesn't. That's curious. I could have sworn that it did. Just did a quick test and TT did not clear the Disruptor breach. Could have sworn the Disruptor breach fell under the Tactical Debuffs...I'll go through and hunt down any post I made that states that it does. Woohoo, only 199 posts with Disruptor in them for me to check - lol.
I've been saying that forever - usually folks are quick to point out if something is wrong, and if something is wrong (as it is in this case) - I've got no problem in the least going through and fixing what I've said. I don't have an ego that needs to be right or the like...I just need the info to be right.
Still bothers me - cause it's not something I would have said without having checked. And this was before the WCE DOFF was added with the Cleanse Everything.
Oh well, off to edit those posts...
edit: Found the source for it, btw, same person posted it in two different threads. Found it while going through my posts on Disruptor where I had posted how unobservant I had been not to have noticed that...heh, that was Feb 2013. It required 4 edits, including the one in this thread (the two mentioned in that edit and one other).
I thought I had mentioned it more often - lol - apparently the guy that I saw say it may have said it more often. Not sure that I would have continued saying anything like it though, without having tested it.
Part of me wonders if it changed again when they made the Disruptor changes/fixes last year...hrmm. Doesn't matter, cause it isn't now...so I'll stop saying that it does. Thanks again for questioning that mando.
No, the thread credits everyone where it's sourced from. You're a complete a-hole dude, seriously. Both of these are my thread, so perhaps you should consider that what you said makes no sense. In neither case, why would I credit myself for other people's work? It is CLEARLY credited in the thread.
Instead of posting for no reason, be quiet dude. Instead of criticizing, you should perhaps look at the new thread and thank me for combining what everyone said in a coherent thread that newer players can enjoy. But hey, if you want to be an a-hole, don't think I'm gonna let you TRIBBLE all over me, because I will not. Instead of trolling around for no reason, shut up.
The bold parts of your response actually solidify my position as to your motivations. Name calling helps to prove that you're immature and seeking approval.
everyone. I will check your posts tomorrow. Going to bed now.
thegcbacon, stop trolling dude, you're not funny. I did NOT bold anything in that post and you know it. So stop trying to troll me, because it won't work. You keep trying to troll me, but it's not working and no one cares. I don't know if you're seeing the posts above yours, but those people are actually writing intelligent things. You're not writing anything positive, creative, or useful. So you better stop what you're doing. You are CLEARLY an attention seeker, not worth my time, effort or respect.
From now on, I won't bother even reading your posts. When I see your name, I will simply ignore your post, whether it be very stupid, or very intelligent. You're not worth my time.
P.S. As you could obviously tell, that post which you're talking about was NEVER edited. Which means you're clearly lying. So stop bothering us with your negative behaviour. I'm trying to do something positive, and so are those people. Maybe they and I had a big misunderstanding, but we are grown up enough to get past that. I suggest you do the same by stopping to get at me. That behaviour is very immature.
In support of the OP, while he may have made some badly worded statements about the Wiki, I agree with his orrigional question, and it has spawned some very very good responses, not including the various Trols, but there bound to emerge from under their bridges, The WIki in MHO is a good but not great resource, ther are often bits that are wrong, out of date or just not there, however its a community constructed site so this will happen, we are not a perfect race after all.
I would like to thank all those who have posted constructive replies to the OP, I have been playing this game for a while and have never been able to get my head round weapons, however thanks to this topic I have a much greater understanding of the whole subject.
To the OP, dont let the moaners and trolls get to you, the more you feed them with replies the more they come back to be fed. (sits back and awaits a Troll Attack)
Jorhana Kreig: KDF, Tal'is: Romulan Fed, Shona'a: Romulan KDF, Johan Paul Kreig: Fed
thegcbacon, stop trolling dude, you're not funny. I did NOT bold anything in that post and you know it.
You should probably reread thegcbacon's post. He wasn't saying you bolded anything yourself. He was simply calling attention to the part of your post he has issue with. It's a common forum discussion tool, so I assume your are new to this sort of thing.
That being said, the 'Everyone who helped me in the specific manner I wanted to be helped-thanks! Everyone else-stop being stupid trolls!' tone of your posts could use some moderation. Just saying.
vs. mobs with no shields, well - that proc is useless.
vs. mobs that are likely obliterated before the proc happens, well - that proc is near useless.
vs. mobs with shields and not given to being instapopped, well - that proc could be useful
vs. players, are they getting shield heals out the wahzoo?
Are the Tet weapons being used overall to boost a shield killing build? Why would somebody run such a thing? What might be involved in that?
Damn, that is what I call very useful in terms of explaining something. Not something I would have ever considered putting together. Thank you for that perspective on things. That could well be an FAQ in and of itself. It really could be, because this type of way of seeing things is pretty damn good.
edit: erroneous info about Disruptor procs removed
That was in response to mandoknight89's response?
In any case, you bring out VERY interesting points of argument. I have done some research for different things, but I often found myself finding hundreds of threads. At some point, I would look through some, but the sheer amount of threads that may contain the answer OR a post within it that may contain an answer (only partially related) makes it very time consuming.
But to say the least, you have had some very good ideas, arguments and perspective in how to analyze what you said. Everyone thanks for you that, kudos
johankreig, thank you for your feedback I do appreciate seeing those words this morning.
letsrish, I reread what the other guy said. To me, it really does seem that he is saying what I think he said. For me, there is no other way of seeing it. No one would use the word bold unless they are referring to something that would have been bolded. I've never used that word in any other context, except to call someone bold, or an action bold. Unless you're referring to something completely different.
I only called one person a troll. Which he is. I called no one else a troll. So, I really don't see what you're talking about.
letsrish, I reread what the other guy said. To me, it really does seem that he is saying what I think he said. For me, there is no other way of seeing it. No one would use the word bold unless they are referring to something that would have been bolded. I've never used that word in any other context, except to call someone bold, or an action bold. Unless you're referring to someone completely different.
He's not saying that YOU bolded that part. You seemed to be upset that he was accusing you of bolding something that you didn't bold. That's not the point he's trying to make. HE bolded the part of your post that he took issue with.
I only called one person a troll. Which he is. I called no one else a troll. So, I really don't see what you're talking about.
I'm just saying that you could dial back the self-righteousness a bit. When people started giving you answers to your questions that you were unsatisfied with, you got real... snippy about it. Trolls smell snippy like sharks smell blood. And while you may have called only one person a troll, you've been fairly carefree about spreading your general disdain around. Complaining about the help others try to give you, even if it wasn't very helpful, never ends well, especially on message boards.
Now I understand what you're saying. To be honest, I don't see a difference between something bolded or something not bolded in the quote that he used. So if that is the case about him having bolded something in the quote, I honestly can't tell the difference o_O
Woah, where do you get that I was dissatisfied with any answers given by anyone? I didn't. All I was was annoyed that no one understood the simple concept I was trying to explain. Which was so frustrating. But I was finally able to convey my message in the end, which they ended up understanding, as I broke it down bit by bit.
Please please accept my apology on behalf of all "Noobs".
I came here for the same reason the OP did, to try to better understand all the info on the Wiki and STOked.
But for goodness sake please don't let this ego-maniacal child represent the rest of us. Some of know how to read and some of us know how to use Google.
And we're not all children. In fact if my daughter was acting that way, well she wouldn't she has manners so...
Anyway I have found this thread quite useful and the explanations within and I would like to say a Thank You to all the Vet's; not for this thread but for the Wiki this child couldn't understand, even though he's apparently learned enough to half a** copy and paste yall's information and make an attempt to make himself sound smart.
I've posted my feeling in a direct reply to malazancommander's "informative post" #6 and again I apologize on behalf of us noobs.
Comments
In other words he wants HIS thread stickied so people will think he's all knowing. This is all about his ego & his responses show it. I see this behaviour all the time in game. The wiki isn't hard to understand, using forum search isn't hard either.
More helpful than deriding the wiki as useless would be to explain why you couldn't understand the wiki as opposed to the forum posts.
Let's concentrate on the basics:
What do weapon types do? Most weapon types have a side effect, ranging from deadly to annoying. Let's go over how you protect against them:
Phaser: Subsystem Repair
Polaroid, Tetryon: Power Insulators
Plasma: Hazard Emitters
Disruptor, Antiproton: No counter or cleanse.
All weapon types, of course, cause damage to you, and all are the same in this regard. Outside of specific pieces of equipment that resist specific types, there is only one defense against this: Do unto others before they do unto you.
No, the thread credits everyone where it's sourced from. You're a complete a-hole dude, seriously. Both of these are my thread, so perhaps you should consider that what you said makes no sense. In neither case, why would I credit myself for other people's work? It is CLEARLY credited in the thread.
Instead of posting for no reason, be quiet dude. Instead of criticizing, you should perhaps look at the new thread and thank me for combining what everyone said in a coherent thread that newer players can enjoy. But hey, if you want to be an a-hole, don't think I'm gonna let you TRIBBLE all over me, because I will not. Instead of trolling around for no reason, shut up.
On this, have a nice day.
@doffingcomrade, endgame??? Who's speaking of the endgame? This is NOT for veterans who knows exactly what type is or does. We are talking about newbs, people relatively new to the game - a few months or so. Not the endgame at all.
Bro, seriously, leave it. Leave that damn original post alone, please. I am honestly getting tired of having to defend myself because you guys think I be should be apologetic. I am not and won't be. I have the right to my opinion about the wiki. So, just drop it man.
The wiki IS incomplete, doesn't explain the things that you and shurato2099 explain. Trust me, the wiki in no way tells us nor explains to us the answers I was looking for. I'm not gonna apologize for believing that. I WILL NOT.
I do greatly appreciate what you have said and contributed to, and trust me, newbs will PREFER that thread over the wiki when it comes to explaining what shurato2099 and yourself have so damn well explained. It's not because the wiki is empty of information, but rather because the thread gives the information in a way that allows the newb to understand much more easily. When you keep seeing 2.5%, buff, debuff and all that TRIBBLE, that's not newb talk. That is veteran talk.
I want newb talk when I read something! Like a lot of other newbs. Everyone so far who commented on the new thread seems to say that it's well documented. So, look at it and please tell me it's utter TRIBBLE. We both know it will help newbs, because it explains it in a way that makes us feel that we can understand what's written. The thread will be modified some more in the near future to have more information.
So please, just drop it.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage
"Energy Damage is the common name of the 6 types of damage dealt by direct fire ranged energy weapons both in space and on the ground."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage_type#Energy_Damage
"There are six different Energy Damage types, each having a bonus effect, known as a Proc. Most weapons come with one of these bonuses, while some rarer weapons may contain multiple.
Direct energy Ship Weapons, such as Beams and Cannons, use Energy Damage. Deployable Ship Devices such as Satellite Turrets also deal Energy Damage based on the type of weapon it carries.
Most Ground Weapons deal Energy Damage, and include Pistols, Rifles, and Assault Weapons. Some deployable Turrets through the use of Kits can also deal Energy Damage, depending on the turret used.
There are tactical advantages to using a single energy damage type primarily due to consoles giving a greater bonus by energy type (e.g. phasers) than by weapon type (e.g. beam arrays). However, some players prefer to use a wide variety of damage types in the hopes of scoring multiple proc hits."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage
"Kinetic Damage is dealt by deployed, thrown or self-propellant explosive devices, and also by certain abilities, both in space and on the ground."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage_type#Kinetic_Damage
"Kinetic damage is dealt by explosive devices of various kinds. In addition to the Kinetic Damage, these weapons often have secondary effects, in some cases dealing additional Energy Damage or Exotic Damage to the target in a single hit or as a DoT or AoE.
In space, Kinetic Damage is dealt by torpedoes launched from Torpedo Launchers and deployable Torpedo Platforms, Mines deployed from Mine Launchers, and by using certain abilities.
On the ground, Kinetic Damage is dealt by Mines, Bombs and Mortar type turrets deployable by the use of Kits, and Grenades thrown by using Kits or abilities.
Kinetic Damage is more effective against armor than shields, and there is a dedicated resistance against Kinetic Damage.
Note: Melee attacks such as martial arts or with the Bat'leth do NOT count as Kinetic damage."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapons
"Energy Weapons do equal damage to both a starship's shields and hull."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage_type#Kinetic_Damage
"Kinetic Damage is more effective against armor than shields, and there is a dedicated resistance against Kinetic Damage."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapons
"Kinetic Weapons do full damage to a starship's hull but shields have an innate 75% resistance to kinetic weapons, though some types of kinetic weapons have improved shield penetration."
This is incorrect.
There are multiple types of Cannons: Dual Cannons, Dual Heavy Cannons, Quad Cannons, Single Cannons/Cannons, Single Heavy Cannons, Turrets, Heavy Turrets. There are multiple types of Beams: Beam Array, Dual Beam Bank, Beam "Turret".
Such a broad statement cannot be made without taking into account a number of factors.
This is incorrect.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapons#Firing_Arcs
Dual Cannons, Dual Heavy Cannons, Quad Cannons: 45 degrees
Single Cannons/Cannons: 180 degrees
Turrets: 360 degrees
This is incomplete. Beam damage lessen with distance as well. Though, Cannon falloff is worse than Beam falloff.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Space_combat#Dealing_Damage
"Proximity is a factor in space combat; more damage is done at close range."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Space_combat#Dealing_Damage
"Keep your target within the firing arc of your weapons."
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Space_combat#Dealing_Damage
"Keep your target within the firing arc of your weapons. Escorts and Birds-of-Prey should bring forward weapons to bear, whereas Cruisers should keep the broadside facing the target."
While it is partially opinion - the part of keeping the target in the firing arc of your weapons should be common sense. There are folks that fly slowboats with certain Cannons, cause they're parking and shooting at a slow target. There are folks that fly fastboats with Beam Arrays, cause they just like to fly around going wheeee! (Okay, no - that may be part of it - but there's also the defense aspect to take into consideration - the use of FAW to hit multiple targets that are spread out - it can get complex.)
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapons
Both provide far more info than that little blurb.
Proc can mean different things to different folks. For some, it's "process" for some "procedure" for some "programmed random occurrence", etc, etc, etc.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Proc
"A proc in Star Trek Online and other MMOs is a term used to describe a special effect or bonus that is activated on a piece of equipment, generally with a low percentage chance to happen. It is short for the common programming term procedure. Many younger people often tend to want to interpret terms that are unfamiliar to them as acronyms and as such want to backronym the term proc as being for "Programmed Random Occurrence", but that is not the origin of the term.
An example of a proc would be the 2.5% chance bonuses that are applied to starship weapons, such as a Beam Array."
Includes an opinion. Weapon of choice is a complex matter.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Antiproton#Antiproton
For info on the Energy type.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapon
For info on the Weapons.
Could go through the rest, but it's all a mix of incomplete/incorrect information sprinkled with opinions...where the correct information can be found from:
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapon
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Space_combat
So as you can see, outside of the incorrect information and opinions...you've offered nothing that's not already there on the wiki.
Thus, your surprise and anger that people do not believe that you even looked at the wiki is kind of baffling...when again, outside of incorrect information and opinions - you've offered nothing that's not already there on the wiki. Hell, almost all of it on just three pages on the wiki.
For instance...
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage_resistance
IMHO, needs to be updated to reflect the current game terminology of Damage Resistance Rating. It should include information on the Rep Passives/Traits that affect it (like dragonsbite pointing out how things work akin to the shield damage reduction formula after you've gone through the damage resistance rating to damage resistance conversion). It should also include information on how debuffs affect damage resistance.
And like this...
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guide:_Shields
That's woefully out of date and needs to be updated. There's updated info spread throughout a handful (maybe more) posts.
While this guide ( http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guide:_Basics ); folks tend to keep up to date.
There's good and bad there...it's not perfect by any means, but it does cover most of the basics fairly well - the things that one might see most players caring about. The nitty gritty spreadsheet warrior stuff...heh, not so much.
This is what I see:
Some 2.5% number crunching, ok. Disables a subsystem, ok, sure. Should I actually care about that? How important is it? The thing about the [Pha], I get it, okay simple that one. But, what about what the weapon does in different situations? Are we talking about this particular energy type being better in a dogfight? Or on the ground? Are we talking about it being better than another weapon type? Are we talking about the weapon doing more damage in the same situation another weapon would? Is there a way to prevent or heal a system falling offline if hit by said weapon? And so on, an so on.
Yeah I go to different places in the wiki, but at some point, your questions either becomes unanswered OR you miss it at some point after hours of looking for stuff. The information whether opinionated or somewhat skewed (a possibility) was made coherently available by shurato2099 and slightly by mandoknight89. To be sure, their answers don't answer everything, but it's a damn great start!
Player A may find that Energy X is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
Player B may find that Energy Y is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
Player C may find that Energy Z is the best, and they'll go through and make their case for it.
With Phasers, could they add a bit that tells a person to check out Subsystem Repair to reduce the duration?
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Skill:_Starship_Subsystem_Repair
"This skill reduces the amount of time it takes for a disabled subsystem to come back on-line."
Or is it a case that they might have assumed that folks have looked through the skills first?
That would be a thing where I would agree they shouldn't assume such a thing.
edit: erroneous info about Disruptor procs removed
But like I said, STOwiki's not perfect by any means - but it's generally not difficult to find info on the forums if it is not at the wiki. Like doing a search for: Tetryon proc :returns all sorts of informative threads discussing the weapons.
And a lot of it will get into opinion...going back to the different players and different weapons, etc, etc, etc.
It's also going to get into scenarios...and...is it really a case of wanting to overwhelm a new player with countless scenarios? Consider Tetryon again.
vs. mobs with no shields, well - that proc is useless.
vs. mobs that are likely obliterated before the proc happens, well - that proc is near useless.
vs. mobs with shields and not given to being instapopped, well - that proc could be useful
vs. players, are they getting shield heals out the wahzoo?
Are the Tet weapons being used overall to boost a shield killing build? Why would somebody run such a thing? What might be involved in that?
What about the different types of Tet weapons? Are there any other weapons that might be helpful in such a situation? What about Phasers? They've got a chance with their proc to drop the shield facing completely...that's pretty nifty, eh? What about Polarons? With that drop in Shield Power, you're going to reduce Shield Damage Reduction and Shield Regeneration. Heck, there are Phased Polarons! There's also going to be Elite Disruptors which have a "Shield Disruptor" proc which reduces Shield Damage Reduction and increases Shield Damage. Nanite Disruptors have a dual proc that reduces Hull Damage Resistance and increases the amount of Shield Penetration/Bleedthrough. If the goal is to zero the hull to destroy the target, that could be good too - right? Then there's also the Rep Passive that increases Bleedthrough/Shield Penetration. There are DOFFs that can. If we're going that route, why not look at the Elachi Crescent weapons which have a chance to ignore shields and part of the hull damage resistance to chew away at the hull. Protonic weapons? Bio-molecular Phasers and Disruptors? Both have that extra hull hitting damage potential...
It goes on and on and on and on...the sheer number of possible combinations out there - and...Heck, how about that as well, eh?
With the Advanced Tactical Vulnerability Locator/Exploiter consoles, we saw a closing of the difference between Specific and Generic consoles (Specific = single energy type, Generic = single weapon category type (torps, mines, cannons, beams)).
With Very Rare Mk XII Tac Consoles, the difference between a Specific and a Generic was 10% base damage (the discussion of how damage is calculated is a-whole-nother conversation). Specifics have +30% and Generics have +20%.
With the Advanced on the other hand, though - you're looking at Specifics with +31.9% and Generics with +27.9% instead. So instead of a 10% difference per console, you're looking at a 4% difference per console. And again, that's base damage...not just damage.
So where folks used to ridicule Rainbow Builds (mixed energy types), while it's still not quite as good as a single type for strict damage - it's not as bad as it once was. It also opens the door to possibilities for some of the hybrids where one can get by without reducing their overall probability for a proc chance.
Consider 8x Phaser Beam Arrays, eh? 4x Phased Polaron Beam Arrays and 4x Bio-Molecular Phaser Beam Arrays would allow one to keep the same probability to land a Phaser proc while introducing the additional probability (not as high as the Phaser) of Polaron procs as well as the new B-M proc with reduced flight speed and radiation damage. That's just one example. But yes, they'll be doing 4% less base damage per console. Heck, even that's not necessarily quite right - because we can't really ignore that whole discussion of how damage is calculated. That 4% will be modified by later modifiers. @125 Weapon Power, that 4% is actually 10% base damage. Throw in the new T2 Omega (not the current one, but the one on Tribble), Emergency Power to Weapons 1, and Attack Pattern Omega 1 (with 9 in Starship Attack Patterns, yep - have to work a skill in there somewhere)...and we're now looking at 14.5% base damage lost per console!
That's horrendous, right? 14.5% base damage gone???? Base damage for a Beam Array is 100. Yeah, you've lost 14.5 damage per volley. Oh, no doubt it can add up eventually. Heck, with a Beam Overload 3 and some other buffs - you might even lose 100 damage per console.
Just how much info does the new player need thrown at them at once...and how much should be available spread about as they feel they need - as the question arises sort of thing? Cause honestly, we're talking stuff that folks pick up over weeks, months, years - something that's changing every few months. With some of the changes on Tribble for S9, stuff that folks have been sharing since they came out with S7 will no longer be the case.
I honestly hadn't heard before that the Disruptor procs are cleansed by Tac Team. Is there a source for that? Did you test it? Debuff cleansing documentation is really annoying since it's mostly word-of-mouth, particularly with more subtle debuffs like the Disruptor procs. APB/APD/FOMM/Boarding Party/Plasma burn are obvious when cleared because there's a major graphic on your ship that goes away, but there's nothing like that for Disruptors.
You're right. It doesn't. That's curious. I could have sworn that it did. Just did a quick test and TT did not clear the Disruptor breach. Could have sworn the Disruptor breach fell under the Tactical Debuffs...I'll go through and hunt down any post I made that states that it does. Woohoo, only 199 posts with Disruptor in them for me to check - lol.
I've been saying that forever - usually folks are quick to point out if something is wrong, and if something is wrong (as it is in this case) - I've got no problem in the least going through and fixing what I've said. I don't have an ego that needs to be right or the like...I just need the info to be right.
Still bothers me - cause it's not something I would have said without having checked. And this was before the WCE DOFF was added with the Cleanse Everything.
Oh well, off to edit those posts...
edit: Found the source for it, btw, same person posted it in two different threads. Found it while going through my posts on Disruptor where I had posted how unobservant I had been not to have noticed that...heh, that was Feb 2013. It required 4 edits, including the one in this thread (the two mentioned in that edit and one other).
I thought I had mentioned it more often - lol - apparently the guy that I saw say it may have said it more often. Not sure that I would have continued saying anything like it though, without having tested it.
Part of me wonders if it changed again when they made the Disruptor changes/fixes last year...hrmm. Doesn't matter, cause it isn't now...so I'll stop saying that it does. Thanks again for questioning that mando.
The bold parts of your response actually solidify my position as to your motivations. Name calling helps to prove that you're immature and seeking approval.
thegcbacon, stop trolling dude, you're not funny. I did NOT bold anything in that post and you know it. So stop trying to troll me, because it won't work. You keep trying to troll me, but it's not working and no one cares. I don't know if you're seeing the posts above yours, but those people are actually writing intelligent things. You're not writing anything positive, creative, or useful. So you better stop what you're doing. You are CLEARLY an attention seeker, not worth my time, effort or respect.
From now on, I won't bother even reading your posts. When I see your name, I will simply ignore your post, whether it be very stupid, or very intelligent. You're not worth my time.
P.S. As you could obviously tell, that post which you're talking about was NEVER edited. Which means you're clearly lying. So stop bothering us with your negative behaviour. I'm trying to do something positive, and so are those people. Maybe they and I had a big misunderstanding, but we are grown up enough to get past that. I suggest you do the same by stopping to get at me. That behaviour is very immature.
I would like to thank all those who have posted constructive replies to the OP, I have been playing this game for a while and have never been able to get my head round weapons, however thanks to this topic I have a much greater understanding of the whole subject.
To the OP, dont let the moaners and trolls get to you, the more you feed them with replies the more they come back to be fed. (sits back and awaits a Troll Attack)
You should probably reread thegcbacon's post. He wasn't saying you bolded anything yourself. He was simply calling attention to the part of your post he has issue with. It's a common forum discussion tool, so I assume your are new to this sort of thing.
That being said, the 'Everyone who helped me in the specific manner I wanted to be helped-thanks! Everyone else-stop being stupid trolls!' tone of your posts could use some moderation. Just saying.
Damn, that is what I call very useful in terms of explaining something. Not something I would have ever considered putting together. Thank you for that perspective on things. That could well be an FAQ in and of itself. It really could be, because this type of way of seeing things is pretty damn good.
That was in response to mandoknight89's response?
In any case, you bring out VERY interesting points of argument. I have done some research for different things, but I often found myself finding hundreds of threads. At some point, I would look through some, but the sheer amount of threads that may contain the answer OR a post within it that may contain an answer (only partially related) makes it very time consuming.
But to say the least, you have had some very good ideas, arguments and perspective in how to analyze what you said. Everyone thanks for you that, kudos
johankreig, thank you for your feedback
letsrish, I reread what the other guy said. To me, it really does seem that he is saying what I think he said. For me, there is no other way of seeing it. No one would use the word bold unless they are referring to something that would have been bolded. I've never used that word in any other context, except to call someone bold, or an action bold. Unless you're referring to something completely different.
I only called one person a troll. Which he is. I called no one else a troll. So, I really don't see what you're talking about.
I'm just saying that you could dial back the self-righteousness a bit. When people started giving you answers to your questions that you were unsatisfied with, you got real... snippy about it. Trolls smell snippy like sharks smell blood. And while you may have called only one person a troll, you've been fairly carefree about spreading your general disdain around. Complaining about the help others try to give you, even if it wasn't very helpful, never ends well, especially on message boards.
Woah, where do you get that I was dissatisfied with any answers given by anyone? I didn't. All I was was annoyed that no one understood the simple concept I was trying to explain. Which was so frustrating. But I was finally able to convey my message in the end, which they ended up understanding, as I broke it down bit by bit.
Please please accept my apology on behalf of all "Noobs".
I came here for the same reason the OP did, to try to better understand all the info on the Wiki and STOked.
But for goodness sake please don't let this ego-maniacal child represent the rest of us. Some of know how to read and some of us know how to use Google.
And we're not all children. In fact if my daughter was acting that way, well she wouldn't she has manners so...
Anyway I have found this thread quite useful and the explanations within and I would like to say a Thank You to all the Vet's; not for this thread but for the Wiki this child couldn't understand, even though he's apparently learned enough to half a** copy and paste yall's information and make an attempt to make himself sound smart.
I've posted my feeling in a direct reply to malazancommander's "informative post" #6 and again I apologize on behalf of us noobs.
Sincerely,
Glass
Would you recommend STO to a friend?