test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Science Odyssey 50k-70k+ DPS: The Return of the Green Knight

2

Comments

  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Heh, my "on paper" tends to be an eyebleed wall of numbers and text. It was precisely the question that I asked though, that Bonus had reached the point of being more than or close enough to Strength that a Strength boost would have more value than a Bonus boost.

    Which would get into the build itself, and not either way or the other being all around superior - rather, each would be superior based on the build; and that would be supported by the "on paper"...

    Take APA, GDF, TacFleet, work in some heinous CrtD with a good CrtH, work in a few other things here and there, and you can get near or surpass the Strength boosts going on (even with the changes to Mk XIII/XIV)...which would change which would be better for the build.

    The bit about AMP boosting AMP does bug me, that would be like a normal Tac Console boosting a normal Tac Console...and it just adds to that growing list of bugs in the game.

    Yeah, pretty much.
  • badtrekbadtrek Member Posts: 22 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Just curious. Would this build and skill tree be viable for an engineer looking to increase DPS? Also, I noticed there are points in particle generators. What skill is on the ship that you would need points in that?

    I do about 35-37k in my Avenger. Would love to be able to squeeze a little more out, but I think being an eng I maybe limited.
  • cmdrscarletcmdrscarlet Member Posts: 5,137 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    It would seem to me, that at about 37K DPS, squeezing more would come from piloting skills than avatar skills/gear.
  • edited December 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    badtrek wrote: »
    Just curious. Would this build and skill tree be viable for an engineer looking to increase DPS? Also, I noticed there are points in particle generators. What skill is on the ship that you would need points in that?

    I do about 35-37k in my Avenger. Would love to be able to squeeze a little more out, but I think being an eng I maybe limited.

    Depends on equipment, Mk XII vs MXIV.

    Mk XII:

    If you are doing 35-37k as an Eng on Mk XII gear in an Avenger you are doing seriously well, and really, I would be inclined to say that would do as you are flying right on the limit of what can be done with your character, and really, it is the endless grind to Mk XIV Epic to take them further.

    Personally, if I were you I would sit back and relax knowing I was one of the best Avenger pilots going - If that does not suit you, then you should upgrade your current kit, as Mk XII VR/UR to Mk XIV Epic is a massive boost and could well see you into top DPSing players in STO.



    And I don't actively recommend Crafting/Upgrades in particular as a rule, but a 37k DPS Fed Eng on Mk XII gear is an exception.


    Mk XIV:

    If however you are using Mk XIV gear already, then you should make adjustments around skill points, traits etc, as an Avenger on Mk XIV stuff could be taken to 70k plus.
  • darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    @robdmc, all the builds you linked and this tac ody Kincard share similar builds and yet results are so much different. What is the secret? I mean you as escort with 5x DBB (stronger than array) mk xiv and ~same items can hit ~27k dps but someone else gains 13k dps from nowhere?

    The "secret" is piloting ability. It takes skill to to get into optimal position in the shortest amount of time, and to properly use your abilities.

    When I was newer to the DPS channels, I once copied one of Sarcasm's builds exactly and parsed something like half of the DPS he listed.

    At one point someone asked about controls in the DPS channels, and Sarcasm basically told us not to be lazy with spacebar spam and trigger our abilities properly. Following that advice my DPS jumped up several thousand DPS.

    Then I went and read one of his guides on how to do ISE (this is pre-DR, obviously), about when to use which abilities, and my DPS jumped up by a few thousand again. (For example, I previously used the Romulan reputation cloak to safely pass the Gate going from the left transformer to the right. His guide said to save it for after the right transformer blows, so you can safely dive into the spheres between the gate and tac cube, and blast everything with Tetryon Cascade and FAW.)

    I'm sitting at Mk XIV gear with maybe 2 quality upgrades, and neither changing my build nor increasing gear quality would result in an appreciable increase in my DPS. I can see myself not getting in position fast enough, I can see when I overshoot, I can see when I'm out of position.

    DPS is basically the result of our gear multiplied by our build, multiplied by our ability. Of those, gear is the smallest, least important factor.
  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    darkjeff wrote: »

    DPS is basically the result of our gear multiplied by our build, multiplied by our ability. Of those, gear is the smallest, least important factor.

    Absolutely.
  • cmdrscarletcmdrscarlet Member Posts: 5,137 Arc User
    edited December 2014
  • sirokksirokk Member Posts: 990 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    it's not a flat 3.3% boost per [AMP]. different bonuses that boost damage will inflate the proc of [AMP] including [AMP] itself.

    yes... you read me correctly: the [AMP] proc will boost [AMP] procs. positive feedback loop?

    Are you sure you are using one of Wesley's science experiments on your ship? XD
    Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home'
    SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
  • sarcasmdetectorsarcasmdetector Member Posts: 1,176 Media Corps
    edited December 2014
    sirokk wrote: »
    Are you sure you are using one of Wesley's science experiments on your ship? XD

    every person that has tried to figure out exactly how [AMP] works has had their heads explode. I don't think the devs even know.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    every person that has tried to figure out exactly how [AMP] works has had their heads explode. I don't think the devs even know.

    Well, we had Hawk say the following...
    Amp is a Strength boost.

    ...which meant that AMP should have been a simple +3.3%, +6.6%, +9.9%, +13.2% Strength boost - like adding a standard Tac console providing the various boosts.

    Whether or not it works as he stated, it wouldn't be the first thing that didn't if it wasn't...
  • tankfox23tankfox23 Member Posts: 100 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Sarcasmdectector was chatting about amp in the dps channels and one comment was to jump to qo'nos space and simply activate alpha and watch the bonus. It spiked up, it is just crazy how it works. It benefits tacs more than eng and sci captains.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    tankfox23 wrote: »
    Sarcasmdectector was chatting about amp in the dps channels and one comment was to jump to qo'nos space and simply activate alpha and watch the bonus. It spiked up, it is just crazy how it works. It benefits tacs more than eng and sci captains.

    Bonus boosts should boost Strength boosts, when applied to damage...not just in of themselves.

    Say you've got the +13.2% going from 4x[AMP] and pop EPtW1, that +13.2% would be +14.52%...or the EptW1 would be +11.32% instead of +10%. Normally we never see the changes that take place there, because they're part of the behind the scenes formula. Is it possible that the AMP tooltip is simply showing those changes where others don't?
  • sarcasmdetectorsarcasmdetector Member Posts: 1,176 Media Corps
    edited December 2014
    it's neither a base bonus like tact consoles nor is it a final bonus. it's floating somewhere in between.

    It's always been working like this, it's just not a lot of people will hover over their warp core while in combat or while popping buffs to notice.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Phaser Beam Array Standard Issue

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 502.5

    And that's what the tooltip shows...502.5 DPV.

    Add the [AMP] core...with the single subsystem above 75 (Weapon @ 125), which shows a +3.4% increase for the [AMP] rather than +3.3%.

    With a +3.4% Strength boost, we'd expect...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    1x[AMP]: +3.4 = 204.4

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 511

    And the tooltip shows 511.2 instead. The +3.4% would actually be +3.48% then.

    We take a second subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.5% increase for the [AMP].

    So we run an expected at +3.5%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    2x[AMP]: +7.0 = 208

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 520

    And the tooltip shows 520.5 instead. This suggests a +3.6% for each instead of +3.5%.

    We take a third subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.7% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.7%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    3x[AMP]: +11.1 = 212.1

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 530.25

    And the tooltip shows 530.5 instead. This suggests around a +3.73% repeating for each.

    We take a fourth subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.8% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.8%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    4x[AMP]: +15.2 = 216.2

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 540.5

    But the tooltip shows 541.3 instead. This suggests a +3.88% increase for [AMP] instead.

    So before moving on to how Tac buffs may affect this, let's take a look at the increase for each, eh?

    1xAMP shows as a +3.48% boost.
    2xAMP shows as a +3.6% boost (each).
    3xAMP shows as a +3.7333% boost (each).
    4xAMP shows as a +3.88% boost (each)

    Now the first thought might be to start off and look at how each of those boosted each of those...but remember, it was supposed to start with +3.3%. So even the first one was actually boosted.

    And I'm not really a math guy, lol - simple math, sure - but this; I don't see an answer from simple math. I don't see any clean manner that the numbers are being generated. Which usually means I'm missing something obvious and frtoaster comes along to point it out, lol. There's also going to be the potential rounding that took place with the numbers. 541.3 might actually be 541.34 or it could be 541.26 or anything along those lines.

    But wait, that was looking at it all as if it were a broken Strength boost - what if it is not a Strength boost at all? Well, it's not exactly working outside of being a Strength boost either. Say we just looked at the 1xAMP.

    No AMP: 502.5
    1xAMP: 511.2

    The 1xAMP tooltip stated 3.4%.

    502.5 / 2.5 = 201 * 1.034 = 207.834 * 2.5 = 519.585
    511.2 / 2.5 = 204.48 / 201 = 1.0173134328358208955223880597015

    Hey, that's kind of close...that 0.017 is half of the 0.034 or 3.4%. So is it 50% of what it would be? Let's look at the 2xAMP with its 3.5% per, 7% total, or 3.5% for 50%.

    201 * 1.035 = 208.035 * 2.5 = 520.0875 or 520.1...vs. the 520.5 the tooltip listed.

    What about 3xAMP with its 3.7% per, 11.1% total, or 5.55% for 50%.

    201 * 1.0555 = 212.1555 * 2.5 = 530.38875 or 530.4...vs. the 530.5 the tooltip listed.

    And the 4xAMP with its 3.8% per, 15.2% total, or 7.6% for 50%?

    201 * 1.076 = 216.276 * 2.5 = 540.69 or 540.7...vs. the 541.3 the tooltip listed.

    That was kind of close, eh? Well, it kind of fell off more with the 4xAMP than it did with the first three...hrmmmm.

    But what about getting that 3.4%, 3.5%, 3.7%, and 3.8%?

    3.3 * 1.033 = 3.4089
    3.4089 * 1.033 = 3.5213937
    3.5213937 * 1.033 = 3.6375996921
    3.6375996921 * 1.033 = 3.7576404819393

    That would get us three of numbers, but not four of them.

    3.3 * 1.033 = 3.4089
    3.4089 * 1.034089 = 3.5251059921
    3.5251059921 * 1.035251059921 = 3.6493697146553932526241
    3.6493697146553932526241 * 1.036493697146553932526241 = 3.782548707797833116326122234486

    That would get us all four numbers, if we rounded that 3.649 to 3.65 to 3.7, eh?

    How would those numbers match up with the numbers as if it were a Strength boost, then?

    1xAMP: (201 + 3.4089) * 2.5 = 511.02225...not the 511.2 the tooltip showed.
    2xAMP: (201 + 7.0502119842) * 2.5 = 520.1255299605...not the 520.5 the tooltip showed.
    3xAMP: (201 + 10.9481091439661797578723) * 2.5 = 529.87027285991544939468075...not the 530.5 the tooltip showed.
    4xAMP: (201 + 15.130194831191332465304488937944) * 2.5 = 540.32548707797833116326122234486...not the 541.3 the tooltip showed.

    What if they were ran against that goofball 50% thing?

    1xAMP: 201 * 1.0170445 * 2.5 = 511.06486125...closer to the 511.2 of the tooltip.
    2xAMP: 201 * 1.035251059921 * 2.5 = 520.2136576103025...closer to the 520.5 of the tooltip.
    3xAMP: 201 * 1.0547405457198308987893615 * 2.5 = 530.00712422421502664165415375...closer to the 530.5 of the tooltip.
    4xAMP: 201 * 1.0756509741559566623265224446897 * 2.5 = 540.51461451336822281907752845658...closer to the 541.3 of the tooltip.

    But none of it quite works out, meh.

    Regardless though, it is not providing the +3.3% per that we were told, eh? So it would appear to be bugged, however the math might work out for it, no?

    But that's not the only thing that was brought up in regard to it, eh? There was also how other buffs might affect it, right? So let's take a look at that...

    For this, I'm going to compare 3xAMP vs. No AMP. 4xAMP requires me using RMC and I don't feel like waiting for the CD for each test.

    First, working in some +10% from an EPtW1.

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    EPtW1: 0.10

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.10) = 552.75

    The tooltip shows 552.8 (yep, that fun rounding they do for tooltips...wheee!).

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (3.7333 per): 0.112 (some rounding of our own, meh)

    EPtW1: 0.10

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.122) * (1 + 0.10) = 583.55

    The tooltip shows 587...so uh, hrmm.

    587 / 2.5 = 234.8 / 1.1 = 213.45454545454545454545454545455 - 201 = 12.454545454545454545454545454545 / 3 = 4.1515151515151515151515151515152

    That's suggesting we're getting a 4.15%+ increase from each AMP instead of the 3.7333%.

    4.1515151515151515151515151515152 / 3.7333333333333333333333333333333 = 1.112012987012987012987012987013...which would be an 11.2% boost, which is better than the 10% boost if it were EPtW1 boosting it.

    The tooltip for the core still showed the 3.7% increase per.

    Okay then, er, let's move on to what was mentioned about Tac buffs. I've only got the Sci, so I can't test APA/TacFleet. I'll drop out a +24.8% APO3 though.

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.248) = 627.12

    The tooltip shows a 627.2 for us. Meh, I'm tired - it's close enough, lol. So let's look at that with the AMP.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.248) = 671.112

    The tooltip shows 672.1...and damn, that's pretty much on, right? They probably truncated the 0.012 from it, etc, etc, etc with the single decimal and all that.

    You may have noticed, mind you - the 3xAMP shows 4.7% per instead of the 3.7/3.7333%. Yeah, the APO3 changed the tooltip for the core from 3.7% to 4.7%. Yes, the APO3 boosted the AMP boost and in turn boosted the damage twice.

    And if we look at both EPtW1 and APO3?

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    EPtW1: 0.10
    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.348) = 677.37

    The tooltip shows 677.5...and again, I'm typing this with one eye closed at this point. Zzzzzz, so it's good enough - lol.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    EPtW1: 0.10
    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.348) = 724.887

    Unfortunately, the tooltip shows 730.4 instead.

    730.4 / 2.5 = 292.16 / 1.348 = 216.7359050445103857566765578635 - 201 = 15.735905044510385756676557863501 / 3 = 5.2453016815034619188921859545005

    5.2453016815034619188921859545005 / 4.7 = 1.1160216343624387061472736073405

    So it shows ~11.6% vs. the 11.2% we saw with the EPtW1 w/o APO3 back with the 3xAMP.

    So while the EPtW1 doesn't show a change on the tooltip like the APO3 does, both appear to be boosting the boost from AMP while also boosting the damage...that double tap sort of thing (not 200%, but two hits so to speak).

    So if APO does this...APA too? Which would be the benefit Tacs have from it compared to non-Tacs. Does the boost from Sensor Analysis also boost the AMP boost?

    Yeah, lol, this is all sorts of crazy fun...

    ...imagine if it was just the +3.3%, +6.6%, +9.9%, and +13.2% that we were told instead?

    Welcome to STO...meh.
  • sarcasmdetectorsarcasmdetector Member Posts: 1,176 Media Corps
    edited December 2014
    Yeah, lol, this is all sorts of crazy fun...

    I warned you but did you listen? now who's going to clean up the bits of your head plastered on the walls and ceiling?
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    I warned you but did you listen? now who's going to clean up the bits of your head plastered on the walls and ceiling?

    I always joked that AMP was the one that I could never remember...must have been a defense mechanism, that I never wanted to look too closely at it.

    It's like my reply to where Hawk had said it was a strength boost...
    Don't care how many people or how many times people answer that...I won't remember! So there! :P

    edit: Though, I might just bookmark that post. :D

    It was always the "I don't know, don't remember - ask somebody else" part of the discussion for me.

    Was a trip, though, I went to type something in one of the channels in game after that post...and I'd swear in reading it that English wasn't my native language. That post so fried my brain...meh.
  • edited December 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • rmy1081rmy1081 Member Posts: 2,840 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Phaser Beam Array Standard Issue

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 502.5

    And that's what the tooltip shows...502.5 DPV.

    Add the [AMP] core...with the single subsystem above 75 (Weapon @ 125), which shows a +3.4% increase for the [AMP] rather than +3.3%.

    With a +3.4% Strength boost, we'd expect...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    1x[AMP]: +3.4 = 204.4

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 511

    And the tooltip shows 511.2 instead. The +3.4% would actually be +3.48% then.

    We take a second subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.5% increase for the [AMP].

    So we run an expected at +3.5%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    2x[AMP]: +7.0 = 208

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 520

    And the tooltip shows 520.5 instead. This suggests a +3.6% for each instead of +3.5%.

    We take a third subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.7% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.7%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    3x[AMP]: +11.1 = 212.1

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 530.25

    And the tooltip shows 530.5 instead. This suggests around a +3.73% repeating for each.

    We take a fourth subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.8% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.8%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    4x[AMP]: +15.2 = 216.2

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 540.5

    But the tooltip shows 541.3 instead. This suggests a +3.88% increase for [AMP] instead.

    So before moving on to how Tac buffs may affect this, let's take a look at the increase for each, eh?

    1xAMP shows as a +3.48% boost.
    2xAMP shows as a +3.6% boost (each).
    3xAMP shows as a +3.7333% boost (each).
    4xAMP shows as a +3.88% boost (each)

    Now the first thought might be to start off and look at how each of those boosted each of those...but remember, it was supposed to start with +3.3%. So even the first one was actually boosted.

    And I'm not really a math guy, lol - simple math, sure - but this; I don't see an answer from simple math. I don't see any clean manner that the numbers are being generated. Which usually means I'm missing something obvious and frtoaster comes along to point it out, lol. There's also going to be the potential rounding that took place with the numbers. 541.3 might actually be 541.34 or it could be 541.26 or anything along those lines.

    But wait, that was looking at it all as if it were a broken Strength boost - what if it is not a Strength boost at all? Well, it's not exactly working outside of being a Strength boost either. Say we just looked at the 1xAMP.

    No AMP: 502.5
    1xAMP: 511.2

    The 1xAMP tooltip stated 3.4%.

    502.5 / 2.5 = 201 * 1.034 = 207.834 * 2.5 = 519.585
    511.2 / 2.5 = 204.48 / 201 = 1.0173134328358208955223880597015

    Hey, that's kind of close...that 0.017 is half of the 0.034 or 3.4%. So is it 50% of what it would be? Let's look at the 2xAMP with its 3.5% per, 7% total, or 3.5% for 50%.

    201 * 1.035 = 208.035 * 2.5 = 520.0875 or 520.1...vs. the 520.5 the tooltip listed.

    What about 3xAMP with its 3.7% per, 11.1% total, or 5.55% for 50%.

    201 * 1.0555 = 212.1555 * 2.5 = 530.38875 or 530.4...vs. the 530.5 the tooltip listed.

    And the 4xAMP with its 3.8% per, 15.2% total, or 7.6% for 50%?

    201 * 1.076 = 216.276 * 2.5 = 540.69 or 540.7...vs. the 541.3 the tooltip listed.

    That was kind of close, eh? Well, it kind of fell off more with the 4xAMP than it did with the first three...hrmmmm.

    But what about getting that 3.4%, 3.5%, 3.7%, and 3.8%?

    3.3 * 1.033 = 3.4089
    3.4089 * 1.033 = 3.5213937
    3.5213937 * 1.033 = 3.6375996921
    3.6375996921 * 1.033 = 3.7576404819393

    That would get us three of numbers, but not four of them.

    3.3 * 1.033 = 3.4089
    3.4089 * 1.034089 = 3.5251059921
    3.5251059921 * 1.035251059921 = 3.6493697146553932526241
    3.6493697146553932526241 * 1.036493697146553932526241 = 3.782548707797833116326122234486

    That would get us all four numbers, if we rounded that 3.649 to 3.65 to 3.7, eh?

    How would those numbers match up with the numbers as if it were a Strength boost, then?

    1xAMP: (201 + 3.4089) * 2.5 = 511.02225...not the 511.2 the tooltip showed.
    2xAMP: (201 + 7.0502119842) * 2.5 = 520.1255299605...not the 520.5 the tooltip showed.
    3xAMP: (201 + 10.9481091439661797578723) * 2.5 = 529.87027285991544939468075...not the 530.5 the tooltip showed.
    4xAMP: (201 + 15.130194831191332465304488937944) * 2.5 = 540.32548707797833116326122234486...not the 541.3 the tooltip showed.

    What if they were ran against that goofball 50% thing?

    1xAMP: 201 * 1.0170445 * 2.5 = 511.06486125...closer to the 511.2 of the tooltip.
    2xAMP: 201 * 1.035251059921 * 2.5 = 520.2136576103025...closer to the 520.5 of the tooltip.
    3xAMP: 201 * 1.0547405457198308987893615 * 2.5 = 530.00712422421502664165415375...closer to the 530.5 of the tooltip.
    4xAMP: 201 * 1.0756509741559566623265224446897 * 2.5 = 540.51461451336822281907752845658...closer to the 541.3 of the tooltip.

    But none of it quite works out, meh.

    Regardless though, it is not providing the +3.3% per that we were told, eh? So it would appear to be bugged, however the math might work out for it, no?

    But that's not the only thing that was brought up in regard to it, eh? There was also how other buffs might affect it, right? So let's take a look at that...

    For this, I'm going to compare 3xAMP vs. No AMP. 4xAMP requires me using RMC and I don't feel like waiting for the CD for each test.

    First, working in some +10% from an EPtW1.

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    EPtW1: 0.10

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.10) = 552.75

    The tooltip shows 552.8 (yep, that fun rounding they do for tooltips...wheee!).

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (3.7333 per): 0.112 (some rounding of our own, meh)

    EPtW1: 0.10

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.122) * (1 + 0.10) = 583.55

    The tooltip shows 587...so uh, hrmm.

    587 / 2.5 = 234.8 / 1.1 = 213.45454545454545454545454545455 - 201 = 12.454545454545454545454545454545 / 3 = 4.1515151515151515151515151515152

    That's suggesting we're getting a 4.15%+ increase from each AMP instead of the 3.7333%.

    4.1515151515151515151515151515152 / 3.7333333333333333333333333333333 = 1.112012987012987012987012987013...which would be an 11.2% boost, which is better than the 10% boost if it were EPtW1 boosting it.

    The tooltip for the core still showed the 3.7% increase per.

    Okay then, er, let's move on to what was mentioned about Tac buffs. I've only got the Sci, so I can't test APA/TacFleet. I'll drop out a +24.8% APO3 though.

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.248) = 627.12

    The tooltip shows a 627.2 for us. Meh, I'm tired - it's close enough, lol. So let's look at that with the AMP.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.248) = 671.112

    The tooltip shows 672.1...and damn, that's pretty much on, right? They probably truncated the 0.012 from it, etc, etc, etc with the single decimal and all that.

    You may have noticed, mind you - the 3xAMP shows 4.7% per instead of the 3.7/3.7333%. Yeah, the APO3 changed the tooltip for the core from 3.7% to 4.7%. Yes, the APO3 boosted the AMP boost and in turn boosted the damage twice.

    And if we look at both EPtW1 and APO3?

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    EPtW1: 0.10
    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.348) = 677.37

    The tooltip shows 677.5...and again, I'm typing this with one eye closed at this point. Zzzzzz, so it's good enough - lol.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    EPtW1: 0.10
    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.348) = 724.887

    Unfortunately, the tooltip shows 730.4 instead.

    730.4 / 2.5 = 292.16 / 1.348 = 216.7359050445103857566765578635 - 201 = 15.735905044510385756676557863501 / 3 = 5.2453016815034619188921859545005

    5.2453016815034619188921859545005 / 4.7 = 1.1160216343624387061472736073405

    So it shows ~11.6% vs. the 11.2% we saw with the EPtW1 w/o APO3 back with the 3xAMP.

    So while the EPtW1 doesn't show a change on the tooltip like the APO3 does, both appear to be boosting the boost from AMP while also boosting the damage...that double tap sort of thing (not 200%, but two hits so to speak).

    So if APO does this...APA too? Which would be the benefit Tacs have from it compared to non-Tacs. Does the boost from Sensor Analysis also boost the AMP boost?

    Yeah, lol, this is all sorts of crazy fun...

    ...imagine if it was just the +3.3%, +6.6%, +9.9%, and +13.2% that we were told instead?

    Welcome to STO...meh.

    yep, sarcasmdetector was right...my head exploded
  • futurepastnowfuturepastnow Member Posts: 3,660 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    The AMP bonus is affected by things that boost "all" damage, like APA or the Aux - Offensive trait. Why? Who knows. Is that intentional? Possibly maybe.
  • addictartaddictart Member Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    I've been following these forums for years now and honestly I get intrigued when Virus says he doesn't know how something works. So using the posted numbers I had a stab at trying to figure out how AMP works.

    First up a note about APO3:
    Okay then, er, let's move on to what was mentioned about Tac buffs. I've only got the Sci, so I can't test APA/TacFleet. I'll drop out a +24.8% APO3 though.

    No AMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.248) = 627.12

    The tooltip shows a 627.2 for us. Meh, I'm tired - it's close enough, lol. So let's look at that with the AMP.
    Giving the rounding in the tooltip, I'm thinking your 24.8% for APO3 is off. I'm also going to make the assumption you have 9 points in attack patterns, which makes your APO3: 16.6% * 1.495 = 24.817%

    This gives us: 2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.01) * (1 + 0.24817) = 627.205425
    Which matches your tooltip :)


    Now let's look at the posted tooltips on the core itself:
    1xAMP shows as a +3.4% boost.
    2xAMP shows as a +3.5% boost (each).
    3xAMP shows as a +3.7% boost (each).
    4xAMP shows as a +3.8% boost (each).
    We were giving the expected increase of +3.3% by the devs, which obviously doesn't match. The number also rises depending on the number of subsystems > 75. Which suggest our formula looks like: AMP boost = 3.3% * ((1 + x) ^ #systems)

    When using 3.66% as x we get the following numbers:
    1xAMP = 3.3 * (1.0366 ^ 1) = 3.42078 = 3.4
    2xAMP = 3.3 * (1.0366 ^ 2) = 3.545980548 = 3.5
    3xAMP = 3.3 * (1.0366 ^ 3) = 3.675763436 = 3.7
    4xAMP = 3.3 * (1.0366 ^ 4) = 3.810296378 = 3.8


    Next we need to compensate for the bonus damage:
    First, working in some +10% from an EPtW1.

    3xAMP.

    The tooltip for the core still showed the 3.7% increase per.

    Okay then, er, let's move on to what was mentioned about Tac buffs. I've only got the Sci, so I can't test APA/TacFleet. I'll drop out a +24.8% APO3 though.

    3xAMP.

    You may have noticed, mind you - the 3xAMP shows 4.7% per instead of the 3.7/3.7333%. Yeah, the APO3 changed the tooltip for the core from 3.7% to 4.7%. Yes, the APO3 boosted the AMP boost and in turn boosted the damage twice.
    Well let's just apply our normal bonus damage to our formula:
    AMP boost = (3.3% * (1 + bonus)) * ((1.0366 * (1 + bonus)) ^ #systems)

    EPTW1 / 3xAMP = (3.3 * 1.1) * ((1.0366 * 1.1) ^ 3) = 4.086319528
    Maybe the tooltip didn't update?

    APO3 / 3xAMP = (3.3 * 1.24817) * ((1.0366 * 1.24817) ^ 3) = 4.709641505
    Matches 4.7% tooltip nicely...


    Now let's look at what that gives for weapons...
    Phaser Beam Array Standard Issue

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 502.5

    And that's what the tooltip shows...502.5 DPV.

    Add the [AMP] core...with the single subsystem above 75 (Weapon @ 125), which shows a +3.4% increase for the [AMP] rather than +3.3%.

    With a +3.4% Strength boost, we'd expect...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    1x[AMP]: +3.4 = 204.4

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 511

    And the tooltip shows 511.2 instead. The +3.4% would actually be +3.48% then.
    Assuming the quote from the dev is correct and AMP is a strength boost and the tooltip uses the same logic, we can apply the same formula:
    1xAMP = (3.3 * 1) * ((1.0366 * 1) ^ 1) = 3.42078 -> 204.42078 -> 511.05195
    Close, but no cigar...

    But what if our base 3.3% is also somehow modified by something? After some trial and error I came up with 3.357%.
    1xAMP = (3.357 * 1) * ((1.0366 * 1) ^ 1) = 3.4798662 -> 204.4798662 -> 511.1996655
    Perfect match...

    So how does that work for multiple systems?
    We take a second subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.5% increase for the [AMP].

    So we run an expected at +3.5%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    2x[AMP]: +7.0 = 208

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 520

    And the tooltip shows 520.5 instead. This suggests a +3.6% for each instead of +3.5%.
    2xAMP = 2 * (3.357 * 1) * ((1.0366 * 1) ^ 2) = 7.214458606 -> 208.2144586 -> 520.5361465
    Perfect match...
    We take a third subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.7% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.7%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    3x[AMP]: +11.1 = 212.1

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 530.25

    And the tooltip shows 530.5 instead. This suggests around a +3.73% repeating for each.
    3xAMP = 3 * (3.357 * 1) * ((1.0366 * 1) ^ 3) = 11.21776169 -> 212.2177617 -> 530.5444042
    Perfect match...
    We take a fourth subsystem to 75 or more, which now shows a +3.8% increase for the [AMP]. We run an expected at +3.8%...

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: +49.5 = 149.5
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: +49.5 = 199
    Phaser Accolade: +2.0 = 201
    4x[AMP]: +15.2 = 216.2

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5 = 540.5

    But the tooltip shows 541.3 instead. This suggests a +3.88% increase for [AMP] instead.
    4xAMP = 4 * (3.357 * 1) * ((1.0366 * 1) ^ 4) = 15.50444235 -> 216.5044424 -> 541.2611059
    Perfect match again...


    So what does that give for bonus damage?
    First, working in some +10% from an EPtW1.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (3.7333 per): 0.112 (some rounding of our own, meh)

    EPtW1: 0.10

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.122) * (1 + 0.10) = 583.55

    The tooltip shows 587...so uh, hrmm.
    3xAMP = 3 * (3.357 * 1.1) * ((1.0366 * 1.1) ^ 3) = 12.47070423 -> 213.4707042 -> 587.0444366
    Looking good...
    Okay then, er, let's move on to what was mentioned about Tac buffs. I've only got the Sci, so I can't test APA/TacFleet. I'll drop out a +24.8% APO3 though.

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.248) = 671.112

    The tooltip shows 672.1...and damn, that's pretty much on, right? They probably truncated the 0.012 from it, etc, etc, etc with the single decimal and all that.
    3xAMP = 3 * (3.357 * 1.24817) * ((1.0366 * 1.24817) ^ 3) = 14.37296957 -> 215.3729696 -> 672.0551986
    Still looking good...
    And if we look at both EPtW1 and APO3?

    3xAMP.

    Base 100

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Phaser Accolade: 0.02
    3xAMP (4.7 per): 0.141

    EPtW1: 0.10
    APO3: 0.248

    125 Weapon Power: *2.5

    2.5 * 100 * (1 + 1.151) * (1 + 0.348) = 724.887

    Unfortunately, the tooltip shows 730.4 instead.
    3xAMP = 3 * (3.357 * 1.34817) * ((1.0366 * 1.34817) ^ 3) = 15.68807625 -> 216.6880762 -> 730.3309094
    Close enough :)


    Obviously this is all just based on one example. So the question now becomes:
    - Why is it using 3.66% as a modifier and not 3.3%? Maybe it is boosted by something? But what?
    - Why is it using 3.357% as a base for weapons? Most likely it gets boosted by something again, but what?

    Anyway, more math for you to tinker with and my head didn't explode :)
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Now see, that's somebody working magic with some numbers...

    /awe

    Going to grab some caffeine and try to get it to sink in.
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Now see, that's somebody working magic with some numbers...

    /awe

    Going to grab some caffeine and try to get it to sink in.

    I'm lost. Are we still using this?

    Because just a quick look says [Amp] is multiplied by things like Alpha and Obelisk...isn't. Obelisk is additive with...well everything else in that Cat. Even using EP2W should give [Amp] two multipliers vs Obelisks one plus one.

    So our quest to max damage would seem to be a matter of spreading our boosts evenly across as many categories as possible.

    Beta, Delta, Sensor Scan, and like abilities aren't listed. I guess it is sort of obvious that they are alike, huge, and need a Category of their own. Even though they aren't strictly speaking output modifiers, they are where the rubber meets the road.

    EDIT: Actually I've wanted to post on that Cat bit for a time now. For instance we can't just put the value of CritD straight into that Cat and fire away. Shouldn't we be modifying that by CritH first? All in all we take for granted that we aren't accounting for Acc in any way. I suppose the assumption being that if you miss none of this happens and if you hit all of it happens. But the CritD won't always happen. Anyways, interesting resource.

    Actually, let me hammer on that a bit more. If the table is accurate regarding Cats, then what it says about them really defines how you would use your abilities to maximize how/when you do your damage.

    For instance waiting to use two abilities that happened to be in the same Cat wouldn't have any difference on total output, but it would take longer to do that damage. Combine Alpha and Omega and you get the same output as chaining them. But not using abilities in different categories at the same time will decrease your overall output. And that's just in general.

    Anyways, the following;

    Replacing CritD with whatever H*D happens to be at the time may give players a better grip on how that works out for them. Or I may be tired. You decide.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    thissler wrote: »

    I've been going with...

    Damage = Base * (1 + WeaponPowerBoost) * (1 + WeaponEnhancementBoost) * (1 + SumAllStrengthBoost) * (1 + SumAllBonusBoost) * (1 - RangePenalty) * (1 - DamageResistance)

    Their Cat4 with Pirate, had been working in their Cat2 for me...the SumAllBonusBoost.

    That all the funky stuff is going on with AMP doesn't change that it appears to fit in their Cat1 or the SumAllStrengthBoost.

    As far as CrtD goes, it could be included for Crits and excluded for non-Crits; but you could run the Average DPS Increase Critical Hit formula to provide the modifier to add into their Cat2 or SumAllBonusBoost to show the Average Damage.

    A bunch of that formula doesn't normally come into play, well - not for me - since most of what I've done with it is mainly in trying to help folks find out how they're getting the tooltip numbers that they are, why adding something doesn't provide them the increase they thought it might, and stuff like that.

    It's part of the reason that I tell folks to accept that maybe the DPS guys can be blunt, but that they can be helpful with all their experience and many of them are willing to share that experience. It's like hitting up Infected...what flightpath is somebody going to run, eh? They've got the experience of having run stuff so many times, so they've got the feeling down for when different targets will drop at what point - where one can best position themselves for the RangePenalty taking into account when targets are going to be there or not. They've got that experience with when to run certain buffs/debuffs - because of the various CDs and durations in relationship to where they'll be and where all the targets are...all that kind of stuff. There is a vast repository of knowledge there...unfortunately I think a bunch of folks have somewhat fragile egos and are put off by even thinking of trying to deal with them.

    If somebody doesn't want to talk to them, that's where I also suggest folks parse and pay attention to what's going on. Hell, I've even passed along what you've said about recording stuff from the PvP angle, because sometimes you might miss something but if you can go back and watch it...can be one of those aha moments.

    Folks can do through and do all the calculations they want to explain almost anything...even if some of the math gurus out there have to step forward to make sense of it for the peabrains like me that just kind of look at it while grey matter oozes out our nostrils...

    ...but in the end, to do it - you've got to fly it.

    It's like I've said a few times, Hell just said it recently in another thread, you could give me any of their builds and put them in some goofball subpar build...they're going to outperform me. They're better pilots. I may make jokes about, "VD, how the Hell did you get over there? I dunno." - but lol, they're pretty much true statements if anybody's seen me fly. I've got crappy internet, running on a crappy machine...I'm not going to get myself all frustrated by trying to do any precision flying...so I just kind of wheeeee!

    But getting back to that ratio of Cat1(Strength):Cat2(Bonus), that's where my initial question about the AMP over Obelisk came into play...didn't realize all the magic going on with AMP. That's why I asked if Bonus(Cat2) had reached the point where increasing Strength(Cat1) resulted in the better increase.

    We start out with 0 for both Cat1(Strength) and Cat2(Bonus) in the following.

    (1 + 0) * (1 + 0) = 1

    Say we add 10% Strength.

    (1 + 0.1) * (1 + 0) = 1.1

    Say we've got the choice of adding another 10%...either to Strength or to Bonus.

    (1 + 0.2) * (1 + 0) = 1.2
    (1 + 0.1) * (1 + 0.1) = 1.21

    We're better off adding it as Bonus than adding it as Strength.

    Generally speaking, there's the tendency to have all sorts of Strength compared to smaller Bonus. So all those Bonus increases work out pretty nifty.

    9 Starship Weapons Training: 0.495
    9 Starship Energy Weapons: 0.495
    Mk XIV: 2.3
    Epic's Dm: 0.05
    2x G14 Locators: 0.7
    Accolade: 0.02

    So right there alone, we're looking at...

    (1 + 4.06) * (1 + 0) = 5.06

    If we had the choice of adding 10% Bonus or 13.2% Strength...

    (1 + 4.192) * (1 + 0) = 5.192
    (1 + 4.06) * (1 + 0.1) = 5.566

    But let's say you're 3.0 Bonus and that's also boosting that AMP boost...

    (1 + 4.456) * (1 + 3.0) = 21.824
    (1 + 4.06) * (1 + 3.1) = 20.746

    Then that AMP's going to be better than the Obelisk sort of thing.

    The Bonus stuff is just made up/fictional stuff there, but it's just to serve as an example of how it's no longer just the 13.2% vs. 10% comparison and how adding a hefty enough chunk to one would be better than the smaller chunk to the other.

    That AMP stuff...definitely complicates everything, cause you're going to need to add in that calculation into that Cat1(Strength) section...so that would become something like (1 + SumAllStrengthBoostsOtherThanAMP + (AMP * (1 + SumAllApplicableToAMPBonusBoosts))) * (1 + SumAllBonusBoosts)...

    Does CrtD affect AMP on Critical Hits? Cause then if you also wanted to account for Average Damage, you'd need to work in that Average Critical Damage aspect into the formula as well...

    Think I'm going to go back to doing Rock and Rolls with the Sarr Theln in Argala....wheeeee!
  • tigerariestigeraries Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Why the points into Starship Threat Control?

    Is the boost to resists needed? Or do you need the extra aggro? With your dmg I would think aggro would not be a factor... in pugs anyway.
  • seraphantillesseraphantilles Member Posts: 97 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Sad that STO is still just a sad game about maxing out your DPS in these lame missions that you repeat over and over and over. Ugh.

    This game should be about Star Trek, which is about exploring the heavens. Going where no man has gone before.

    I was hoping they'd do something like No Man's Sky with this game, with thousands upon thousands of randomly generated planets to explore, new races to discover, new star systems to find. But no.

    It's just "repeat CSE thousands of times trying to get the best DPS".

    Now I remember why I quit last year.
  • jarvisandalfredjarvisandalfred Member Posts: 1,549 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2014
    tigeraries wrote: »
    Why the points into Starship Threat Control?

    Is the boost to resists needed? Or do you need the extra aggro? With your dmg I would think aggro would not be a factor... in pugs anyway.

    Having spoken with Jena a few times on the subject, here's what I remember.

    It's a hybrid PvP/PvE skill tree. In PvE, he's either stuck with the aggro anyway, or things die incredibly fast and aggro doesn't matter. In PvP, it's a pure resist buff, and is more effective (per skill point) than putting points into hull plating and armor, especially since he's got 3 points in those already.
    SCM - Crystal C. (S) - [00:12] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 8.63M(713.16K) - Fed Sci

    SCM - Hive (S) - [02:31] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 30.62M(204.66K) - Fed Sci

    Tacs are overrated.

    Game's best wiki

    Build questions? Look here!
  • jarvisandalfredjarvisandalfred Member Posts: 1,549 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2014
    I've been going with...

    Damage = Base * (1 + WeaponPowerBoost) * (1 + WeaponEnhancementBoost) * (1 + SumAllStrengthBoost) * (1 + SumAllBonusBoost) * (1 - RangePenalty) * (1 - DamageResistance)

    Their Cat4 with Pirate, had been working in their Cat2 for me...the SumAllBonusBoost.

    That all the funky stuff is going on with AMP doesn't change that it appears to fit in their Cat1 or the SumAllStrengthBoost.

    As far as CrtD goes, it could be included for Crits and excluded for non-Crits; but you could run the Average DPS Increase Critical Hit formula to provide the modifier to add into their Cat2 or SumAllBonusBoost to show the Average Damage.

    A bunch of that formula doesn't normally come into play, well - not for me - since most of what I've done with it is mainly in trying to help folks find out how they're getting the tooltip numbers that they are, why adding something doesn't provide them the increase they thought it might, and stuff like that.



    I'm the one that wrote This post, and I haven't tested a few things in it, mostly the ones dealing more directly with weapons (tac consoles, skill points, 2-sets, weapons power, and the like). Also, most of my confirmation on these things has been in the past month or so, when I had completely forgotten about fun stuff like pirate, exocomp, and SA.

    Your post, which I based that on, didn't have an answer for pirate at the time, so I went digging for other threads and Nooblet was calling it a completely final bonus, off by itself, Hellspawny called it a cat 2 buff, and a differenct source said 'they thought it sounded like a cat 2 buff'. So, if you're telling me it's in cat 2, I'll double check that myself and confirm that, and edit that into the right spot for now. Thanks for that.

    The way I tend to deal with posts is to multiply out every category except category 2 (it doesn't matter what order we go in, thanks to the Commutative Property of Multiplication), and break it at cat 2. There, I run the following formula (assuming A is damage before cat 2 buffs, H is crit chance, and D is crit sev): (A * H * (D + other cat 2 buffs + 1))+(A * ( 1 - H) * (1 + other cat 2 buffs))=average damage of a shot, after cat 2 buffs.

    Basically, to break that down, you multiply the damage by the crit chance in the first case, and then by it's multiplier when it crits, and then multiply the damage by the chance that it doesn't crit and by it's multipler when it doesn't crit, which gives you a total of 1 shot, and averages out the crits.
    SCM - Crystal C. (S) - [00:12] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 8.63M(713.16K) - Fed Sci

    SCM - Hive (S) - [02:31] DMG(DPS) - @jarvisandalfred: 30.62M(204.66K) - Fed Sci

    Tacs are overrated.

    Game's best wiki

    Build questions? Look here!
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Guess I should have mentioned the Average Damage Critical formula that I use instead of just mentioning it, hrmmm...

    It takes the basic formula of:

    Average Damage = Base * (1 + (CrtH * CrtD))

    Where CrtH and CrtD are their decimal representations, so if one was just looking at base CrtH/CrtD - 2.5% becomes 0.025 and 50% becomes 0.5 plugged in to the formula.

    So in looking at the SumAllBonusBoosts aspect, what I've been doing and it could be completely wrong is the following:

    (1 + SumAllBonusBoosts + (CrtH * CrtD))

    In the end though, I generally don't bother with it like that. I'd just calculate the Critical and non-Critical separately and leave them as...cause that average number will never be a real number, it's just a spreadsheet average.

    Cause the thing that the other formula up there ignored is the...meh, was going to say variance; but frtoaster corrected calling it that - but the potential range of damage that exists.

    If we go through and calculate everything or just look at the tooltip, even taking into account for the range penalty and possible damage resistance; that's not necessarily going to be the damage done. Can't remember if it is an average/median sort of thing...I know there was a discussion at one point asking about how much +/- from that number that the damage could go; but I haven't been able to find it again...meh.

    And oh, about the discussion on damage resistance and the like...

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Damage_resistance is the basic formula for the diminishing returns.

    The following give the DRR/DRM that each of the skills give:

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Skill:_Starship_Threat_Control
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Skill:_Starship_Hull_Plating
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Skill:_Starship_Armor_Reinforcements

    Keeping in mind that both Threat Control and Hull Plating are 2500 skill points per rank while the Armor Reinforcements is 3000 skill points per rank. Also keeping in mind that ranks 1-3 provide +18 skill per rank, 4-6 provide +10 skill per rank, and 7-9 provide +5 skill per rank.

    Then when one is ready to get into some grey matter melting discussion on Damage Resistance, there's this post from rbaker82: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1128181

    In looking at that particular build...

    3 Threat Control: +5.4 Energy/Kinetic
    3 Hull Plating: +8.1 Energy
    3 Armor Reinforcements: +8.1 Kinetic

    Auxiliary to Structural I is going to provide DRR on a sliding scale based on Auxiliary Subsystem Power. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Auxiliary_to_Structural gives us the three different formulas for each rank. For AtS1, though...

    AtS1 = (Aux Power + 49.95) * 19 / 100

    So that base DRR boost from the AtS1 at the listed 60 Aux Power would provide 20.8905 though the tooltip would likely say 20.9 All Damage Resistance Rating. It's providing both Energy and Kinetic DRR. That's a 10s up/5.5s down (give or take some potential UI delay to increase the downtime beyond the activation delay).

    Like AtS, Hazard Emitters II is going to provide DRR on a sliding scale based on Aux Power. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Hazard_Emitters has the formulas as well. For HE2, we're looking at...

    HE2 = (Aux Power + 50) * (8 / 45)

    As a quick aside, I have to wonder about the 49.95 for AtS and 50 for HE...with the rounding in the tooltips, I've just done quick tests and gone with what they have listed.

    So again with that listed 60 Aux, we'd be looking at 19.55 repeating and a tooltip that would likely show 19.6 for us, eh? It's a 15s up/45.5s down (again, including the activation delay and maybe adding in some UI delay to increase that downtime).

    I mentioned base and sliding not just because it does, but because the particular boat is sporting Leech - so - it's not going to be the 60. There's also the matter of the [W->A] core, eh? I'm feeling lazy, and honestly don't know the Leech formula off hand or even where to look for it, so I'll just do toss out the 125 Aux as well to give it that range between 60 and 125.

    AtS1: 20.9 to 33.2
    HE2: 19.6 to 31.1

    Another boost that some folks sometimes forget about is the boost they can get from Brace For Impact III, which provides +166 Kinetic DRR for 15s and a 60.5s (maybe add in UI delay) downtime. Don't forget that BFI will have it's CD reduced by Opportunistic from the Intelligence Officer specialization. That will drop the CD down to 57.1s...lol, yeah, -2.9s from the 5%. 60 / (1 + 0.05) = 57.14 yadda, yadda, yadda.

    Thankfully the build doesn't have Last Ditch Effort, heh, so I can avoid that for this particular discussion, right?

    Course, there is Battle Ready with the +7.5 Energy/Kinetic on use of an Eng BOFF ability that can stack three times and sufficient Eng BOFF abilities to maintain that three stack for +22.5 DRR.

    Meh, then I notice I forgot all about the Inspirational Leader trait there that can potentially three stack and add up to 35 +30 skill consoles...and I also notice the CD's up so I can go run that Winter Race doohickey, so I'm going to leave that train of thought unfinished...wheeeee!
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    But getting back to that ratio of Cat1(Strength):Cat2(Bonus), that's where my initial question about the AMP over Obelisk came into play...didn't realize all the magic going on with AMP. That's why I asked if Bonus(Cat2) had reached the point where increasing Strength(Cat1) resulted in the better increase.

    Well that's a 'hard saying not knowing' exactly the values in the OP's build. But so far everyone agrees that getting points into the category that is the currently the lowest will yield the greatest return. We just aren't sure in this particular case where those values are so speculation is sort of just speculation.
    Guess I should have mentioned the Average Damage Critical formula that I use instead of just mentioning it, hrmmm...

    It takes the basic formula of:

    Average Damage = Base * (1 + (CrtH * CrtD))

    Where CrtH and CrtD are their decimal representations, so if one was just looking at base CrtH/CrtD - 2.5% becomes 0.025 and 50% becomes 0.5 plugged in to the formula.

    So in looking at the SumAllBonusBoosts aspect, what I've been doing and it could be completely wrong is the following:

    (1 + SumAllBonusBoosts + (CrtH * CrtD))

    In the end though, I generally don't bother with it like that. I'd just calculate the Critical and non-Critical separately and leave them as...cause that average number will never be a real number, it's just a spreadsheet average.

    Well sure that's what you'd use, but not using it would be wildly inaccurate. Unless your crit chance was 100% that is. Okay I take some of that back. If your CritD was only....oh wait. It's just about always going to be 50% for a minimum. But on a crappy build like mine it's 50% only 5% of the time, so calculating it at 100% rate seems a bit generous. Sure the separate calculations you do would be accurate representations of what they are, one shot each. Your spreadsheet average is what you actually need to have on hand to compare to actual parses because that's what actual parses wind up being.

    Granted, if someone on here is sophisticated enough to want to calculate the min/max expected hits as well as an average (forgive my usage) sure you'd want all three calculations. One parser out there will show you all of those things including damage output before resistance as well as after resistance.

    So these calculations better reflect in there somewhere or there isn't much point to them.

    The more data we had the better our predictions would be. Even then the range covered by our predictions could be quite large. But as the time frame or the samples sizes increase we should certainly see practice merging with prediction.

    Anyway. Back to Amp. If a Cat2 is affecting a Cat1 before the mechanics say it should be well then something is amiss. Either that isn't what is happening or the arguments are wrong. Just from the tone of the OP it sounds as if the difference between Amp and Obelisk he was experiencing is due to more than just the small bit of wonky shown in the tool tip. So it brings us back to your question, where were the values actually at that adding a Cat1 was better than adding a Cat2?

    Okay obviously if everything so far is true and accurate we know what those values had to be relative to each other for that to work. I think the question must be "How the hell did they get like that?"

    Peace and love and all that.:)
Sign In or Register to comment.