Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > The Academy
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
02-10-2012, 05:35 PM
That is why the items in the ship must fit the style of play if you like your shields maxed out, phaser enhancements for example will not help you but torpedo ones will but if you put a shield enhancement on its a big deal like faster power boosts to them or faster recharge it matters.

But that is the point of all the variety you can min/max your ship to meet your style speed, firepower, shields, more armor here, better sensors there so I suggest use the Wiki and common sense.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
02-11-2012, 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkolter View Post
That is why the items in the ship must fit the style of play if you like your shields maxed out, phaser enhancements for example will not help you but torpedo ones will but if you put a shield enhancement on its a big deal like faster power boosts to them or faster recharge it matters.

But that is the point of all the variety you can min/max your ship to meet your style speed, firepower, shields, more armor here, better sensors there so I suggest use the Wiki and common sense.
Tkolter, I find all of your points to be very salient, but my biggest concern, like the OP's, is the math behind the consoles and whether they are working as intended.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
02-12-2012, 10:18 PM
Picking the appropriate consoles to suit your style of play is a lot trickier to do if consoles don't do what they say to do, especially if you're unaware that the discrepancy exists.

"Common sense" tells us that a console that says it increases our damage by 26% will increase our damage by something somewhere in the ballpark of 26%, calculated based on the weapon we're using. Not by 26 points of damage, or by a percentage of some other weapon we aren't actually using.

For a more concrete example, using results from this very thread, consider the fact that Energy Weapon consoles compete directly for console slots with Projectile Weapon consoles in a great many builds.

In almost all cases, you have more energy weapons than projectile weapons, and furthermore are firing them off a greater percentage of the time. Therefore, something that increases all of my energy weapons damage by 24% is clearly a better investment than something that increases my projectile weapon damage by 24%.

Except maybe it's not. Because neither of the consoles that claim to do those things do what they say they do.

If, after doing the math, you realize that the +24% energy weapon damage console only boosts your energy weapons damage by a maximum of 60 per weapon (less if you run at less than 125 weapons power), and the projectile weapon console increases your projectile weapon damage by 330 per weapon, then maybe you change your view on which is more desirable.

Until recent changes moving the +35% shield capacity console over into the Science category from Engineering, it was competing for slots against damage reduction consoles and RCS consoles. But while the shield console does exactly what it says on the tin, the armor consoles have a complex formula that many players don't understand, and the RCS console can produce results of less than half of what you'd expect based on the tool-tip.


---

Further (and more thorough) testing of photon torpedoes and their consoles leads me to the conclusion that my earlier testing was (mostly) right. It's not exact though.

My predictions based on player facing math (listed base damage of standard issue photon launcher multiplied by the listed percentage boost on a given console) produce numbers that are bang on at some marks, but off by as much as 10 points of damage at Mk X.

The discrepancy starts at Mk I, with the numbers actually being produced being 1 lower than my calculations predict. As you increase in Mark, this discrepancy goes up by roughly 1 per Mark, until you hit Mk X. At Mk XI, things suddenly kick over to the point of Mk XI consoles producing 1 more point of damage than my calculations would suggest.

I believe that the numbers I'm seeing at all stages (the listed based number, the calculated final number, and the listed bonus) are all rounded approximations of the numbers the system is actually using.

If, for instance, the base damage of a Standard Issue Photon Torpedo Launcher is not the listed 1379, but actually 1378.5, and a 21% console is actually a 20.5% console, then the predicted result would be 3 off the one found in game, rather than 10.

Admittedly, I've been unable to work out numbers that would produce exactly the results found in game, so maybe there's some detail I'm missing. Still, my method gives predictions never more than 10 points of damage away from the in-game result. Compare that to a straightforward interpretation that a +24% console will increase your Mk XI photon torpedo launcher by 24% of its damage... which produces a prediction over 350 points higher than the actual in-game result.

---

Oh, I should also note that I checked for the following things:

1. Yes, a second +15% projectile damage console (as well as a third) adds every bit as much as the first, so no diminishing returns there.

2. A +15% console is a +15% console, regardless of whether it's a common Mk VII, an uncommon Mk VI, or a rare Mk V. There's no apparent extra unspecified benefit for rarity, beyond the ability to access the higher percentage at a lower Mk.

---

I really wish Cryptic would just GIVE US the actual numbers and formulas for all powers, skills, abilities, and consoles in the game. Sure, use simplified numbers in the tool-tip for brevity's sake and to avoid scaring off those who don't want to see the math, but if I right click and choose Info, give me the exact numbers the system is using and tell me where they're coming from, so I can make intelligent informed decisions.

Hiding the more complicated math from users who would be scared off by it is fine and reasonable. Hiding it away completely from those of us who'd like to be more informed serves no useful purpose that I can discern.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
02-12-2012, 10:34 PM
Thank you for posting this. I griped about the change to the Field Generator description, saying it added +35 to a shield skill, versus +35% to shield capacity.

After reading this, I now realise had no idea how messed up the actual math was.

And yes, a simple straight forward and accurate (this is what the console provides) description would be most welcome.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
02-13-2012, 04:34 PM
I'm in complete agreement with this Deshal. I really hope the devs could give us the math, at least for the people who do want to figure it out!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
02-13-2012, 09:11 PM
Good going Deshal, this confirms my suspicions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
02-14-2012, 05:16 AM
I'd like to see a formal response on this.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
02-15-2012, 11:20 AM
While not an official source, some research was done into this in a related manner in the early days of the game, and can be viewed in the blog post at http://theenginescannaetakeit.wordpr...pons-overview/. For weapons, they break down into two components, the base damage (which is the damage done by a standard issue version of the weapon), and the mark bonus. Consoles and skills that improve weapons affect the base damage, while the mark bonus is unaffected. The entire thing is then modified by your ship's power levels. I presume this was done to reduce the effects of stacking several percentage multipliers, which start to grow very fast when you get a lot of them (consoles + skills + mark bonuses + power levels...)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
All this math is great. I applaud and thank everyone for the work they do to try and figure this stuff out. Still, we are always left with the same issues of what effects damage(and other traits too) as being a developer black box. They tweak it and fiddle with it as needed and then the math changes. They are never going to give us updates of exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.

I think we need a compromise, a place or mission to benchmark our builds in a controlled manner specifically against enemies that don't move or fire back. Vary your weapons, consoles, abilties, BOffs, distance...whatever. Everyone against the same set of targets...then live fire against active enemies at the end. Then if (I mean when) they nerf or change something we don't have to argue about the math. We all optimize our ship again the best we can against the same set of variables.

I have been exploring ways to implement this with a foundry mission but cannot seem to find a construct that provides a suitable target(borg nanite generators might work if they were available ). I describe my thoughts in more detail in another post (link at bottom). I guess my main point is that developers by nature want to keep certain things out of the reach of players to keep us interested. This can get quite annoying but it is not going to change(the house always wins). Maybe we could compromise with them to give us players that want to, the ability to optimize our builds without as much guessing...or math.

Cheers

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...roving+grounds
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
02-16-2012, 08:17 AM
Thank you for this.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 AM.