View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 29
08-19-2012, 10:33 AM
Originally Posted by maelwy5 View Post
I kind of didn't want to blatantly point this out, because I don't like highlighting whenever other people are digging themselves into a deep pit... but if you're taking PVP board threads as your primary source of information, then you'll find one of two things:

(i) They're talking about an OLD system (in the past there has been a hard cap of 125, with no buffer. As well as a hard cap of 135) so please check the date on the thread.

(ii) They're talking about the current system - in which case the data they're using is likely primarily derived from the data on that very spreadsheet which I created and linked to above.

I'm certainly not the only one who has performed testing on this, and I certainly can't take credit for the theory... but at the time of posting my results pretty much confirmed what was already suspected by certain members of the STO community, and those results have been used since then to prove the point in many threads, both in and out of the PVP forums. You'll find that spreadsheet in particular linked all over the place.

I hope you can see that attempting to argue with the information I'm posting based upon the same information I'm posting is a bit... well...

For examples of the aforementioned results, and a full history of the Weapons cap interaction, I suggest you try searching for PVP board posts by dontdrunkimshoot, amongst many others. Heck, just google for over 125 weapons power and see what pops up. I guarantee you that you'll find several examples linking to my results, and no reasonable disagreements with it.

Bearing all that in mind, I'm still curious as to what "misinformation" you think we're spreading here... but I trust that other readers of this thread will be able to make up their own minds about it.

I most certainly agree.

Since I got some sleep and feel a bit less ragy than yesterday, I'll give this one more try:

No, I'm not "relying" on PvP threads. I'm using PvP and PvE threads to check for ideas, which I then test to see if they work, and how they do so. I'm doing these test by using combatlog parses, both manually and using the 1.1 plugin for ACT, which actually seems to work (at least the numbers match with the manually calculated ones, which was not the case for previous versions of the ACT plugin and is not the case for any other parser, at least it wasn't last time i checked).
And as mentioned above, I'm quite aware of the nature of changing combat mechanics.
My prefered target for sustained dps tests are the borg command ships in Red Alerts, though I'm also watching parses on all other content - easy to do with a second screen. While you inevitably have some variance due to changing group compositions and skill use (-> changing debuffs and debuff uptimes, inconsistencies in buff uptimes), this effect can be neutralized by running enough parses for a statistical analysis.
Which is also the reason I'm not ready to present numbers yet, as I'd need a couple hundred parses, not just the couple dozen I have now - but these couple dozen are consistent enough in the results that I'm fairly certain about the results already, and are matched by observations from those parses that don't qualify for statistical evaluation.

As for your test, you mixed quite a couple effects together there, most important being:
a) permenant weapon power vs temporary weapon power
b) a glitch that enables beams to use overcapped permenant weapon power (no clue if that one still exists or has been fixed, but it existed when you tested. personally I'm not interested in abusing bugs, so I won't bother with it anyway)
c) using EPS Power Transfer to simulate higher energy levels.
d) choice of target and scenario for the test.

a) is actually working, and intended to work, just as I described already - permenant power is capped at 125, as is (permenant power + temporary power - drain).
By not seperatin between temporary and permenant power and instead listing (permanent power + temporary power) as your scale, you're already invalidating your whole test.

b) this invalidates your 130 and 135 weapon power entries - all you've done with these is to validate a bug, and a bug that only effects beams.

c) EPS Power Transfer has two effects that impact your test:
- it provides a boost to temporary weapon power, that works just like EPtW or batteries,
- and it also provides a boost to power regeneration, basically a "power over time" effect, which impacts weapon power like a HoT impacts health. The longer you shoot with EPSPT up, the stronger this effect gets, and the total gain from it can be up to nearly 40 extra weapon power at the end of the duration, though it's really, really hard to measure excactly.
I'm pretty certain though that it counted at least for a two-digit increase in weapon power for your test.
Note that this power regeneration form EPSPT is distinct from power regenration from EPS, which is important to note since EPS power regeneration is not supposed to effect weapon drain regeneration (and as far as I can see from my test, really doesn't effect it anymore), while the regeneration from PSTPT DOES work against weapon drain.

d) Your target, it's too squishy. At least, if you wanted to test for sustained damage. At the start of a firing cycle, power levels fluctuate wildly, all through the first salvo and into the second. By that time though, your target already exploded.
You really need to shoot at something sturdy so that weapon cycles and power levels drop into a constant pattern.

The other big issue with your test conditions is that you did not test for using abilities. I understand you were trying to keep test conditions as clean as possible, but since you were using EPSPT this really, really backfired: using CRF or FAW speeds up your weapon cycles and thereby your drain cycles, which in combination with EPSPT yield a different (higher) benefit.
While that's not technically a problem with your test scenario, but with the conclusions you drew from it.

The total effect is that ... well, your test is indeed useless. Too many flaws, and the effects of those flaws multiply, for a huge number.
Make a clean test, using dual EPtW for near-constant uptime, use at least a Tac Cube as target, run the test with both cannons and beams, both with and without using FAW/CRF ... and you'll notice.
Yes, that takes more work. You'll have to filter out all periods where your target used mitigating abilities, all those periods where it caught debuffs from teammates actually trying to kill it instead of making scientific observations ... but that's really not that hard.

And, just to get back to the original topic: this mechanic of weapon power really makes a difference when discussing Ody/Bort-variants, since you'll have to make adjustments to the Sci's build ... or lose about another console's worth of dps, at minimum.