Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 134
# 11
07-24-2012, 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thissler View Post
Okay you got me. My neck was sore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2tdZo4_0nc&feature=plcp

Here's a slightly better look at the bridge. But for those of you that don't actually have one, what you see on the floor is what you see two more times overhead. There is one large panel that looks like it may be some sort of port. Its rather large. And dark. And there you have it.
Nice videos, thanks for posting!
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 60
# 12
07-24-2012, 10:42 AM
I thought i would put my 2 ECs in and say that i own 4/5 endgame carriers the only one i dont have is the akira.between the kar'fi and the recluse imo for my playstlye with sci/eng toons the recluse is better moreso with Eng than sci as eng capt skills are heals so i can put a tac in the uni slot,as one of my better options anyway

Last edited by mastergenera1; 07-24-2012 at 10:53 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 12
# 13
07-25-2012, 03:44 PM
There's one thing, if you can afford it, that really makes it shine.

Energy Web console from the Orb Weaver.

Works in the Carrier. Working on a theoretical build for it using energy web now...

Wish I had more info on the energy web though, can someone post its function? I know the basics, but as in slowing, damage etc.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 369
# 14
07-30-2012, 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitechgunshot View Post
There's one thing, if you can afford it, that really makes it shine.

Energy Web console from the Orb Weaver.

Works in the Carrier. Working on a theoretical build for it using energy web now...

Wish I had more info on the energy web though, can someone post its function? I know the basics, but as in slowing, damage etc.
http://www.stowiki.org/Console_-_Uni..._Web_Generator

[ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,400
# 15
07-30-2012, 05:58 PM
A tactical in a Carrier isn't necessarely a good Idea.

The Atrox definitely Not..

The Vor'quv, has possibilities, but not necessarely a good Idea..

The Recluse is also not really a good Idea..

Why? Because of it's Turn rate. It's slightly better then the Vor'quv and the Atrox.. But it's not better then the Kar'fi's Turn rate. 5.5 is not better then 7.

Also, even if you use the Universal Commander Bridge officer Slot for a Tactical officer, you can use it for.. what.. Beta 3, Delta 3, Omega 3, Cannon: Rapid Fire 3, or Cannon: Scatter Volley 3..

What weapons would you use in the Recluse? DHC's, if you use those, is a Joke on a Carrier, even with it's SLIGHTLY improved turn rate compared to the Vor'quv, and the Atrox. Same goes for Dual Cannons. Single Cannons might be useful, but again the turn rate still in that Cannons are a no no area.

And let's face it, with only 6 Weapon slots, Turrets aren't really good Idea either because their damage, on one ship alone isn't great.

So that leaves Beams (Single/Dual) Mines, and/or Torpedoes.

Honestly, Single beam arrays are the best idea on a Carrier. If your on the Federation side, this might give a similar option to the Vor'quv, but you lose the Commander slot from the Sci side. Which means you lose powers like FBP 3, Scramble 3, TBR 3, Viral 3, Tyken's 3, Gravity Well 3, and Energy Siphon 3.

So that comes down to the following question.. Are you going to lose more in your build not only as a Tac, but by using the universal Command slot to try and get more DPS from the Carrier by using a Tac officer. Or would you be better served leaving it in the traditional position of Sci Commander?

Just my Thoughts on this topic after testing the ship out on tribble a couple weeks ago.
You think that your beta test was bad?
Think about this:
American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 369
# 16
07-31-2012, 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by webdeath View Post
So that comes down to the following question.. Are you going to lose more in your build not only as a Tac, but by using the universal Command slot to try and get more DPS from the Carrier by using a Tac officer. Or would you be better served leaving it in the traditional position of Sci Commander?
Definitely the Tac slot.

APB3 sticks to your target, so it multiplies the damage of anything shooting at it, including you and your fighters (and any teammates). You'll all do 150% damage.

Alternatively, 6x Turrets with CSV3 is actually much better DPS than using Beam arrays. It'll actually beat using APB3 as a pure damage multiplier (173.3%), but won't apply to the DPS of your fighters or teammates.

Mk X Beam Array: 752.2 per shot (602 DPS)
Mk X Turret: 338.6 per shot (451.5 DPS)
Mk X Turret with CSV3: 587 per shot (782.6 DPS)

Commander slot of TT1/APB1/[CSV2 or APB2]/CSV3 would probably be the most effective DPS you can get. (It's closer between CSV and APB at LtCom level so you have a choice here: CSV2 grants ~45% damage, but APB2 grants 40% and applies to fighters)

The best DPS the Sci Commander has to offer is GW3 or PSW3, neither of which can bring THAT level of extra damage to the table (and PSW3 would be very hard to leverage with such a low turn rate).

[ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,292
# 17
07-31-2012, 06:52 AM
Somewhere this thread sort of got onto tactical captain vs science captain, and also tactical bridge officers and science bridge officers. And that would be okay except for the discussion quickly devolved into DPS knuckle dragging. More DPS is never the answer to any question outside of "How can I do more DPS?"


Once its decided that you will be taking a ship into combat the proper questions to ask are "How do I win?" and "Will I be working on a team or alone?". Those are the two questions. This is very important.

The answer to the first question isn't always "Make the enemy explode.". There are events in the game where you need only to slow your opponent down, or support an NPC, and you will win. If you are working with even one other person the two of you can optimize your ships to do more of whatever it is you're doing than the sum of your separate efforts.

For PVP in particular DPS is likely the single weakest way to evaluate a ship's build. The only less useful way that I can think of off hand would be by using warp speed in sector space.

First suggestion, stop saying DPS. It really does more harm then good. DPS is simply a convention that was agreed upon that allowed for some sort of comparison between otherwise different abilities. It is an extremely weak tool. Burst damage is an excellent tool to use in this game.

Burst damage would be damage that is near instant in application as in Beam Overload, or over the course of seconds, as in Cannon Rapid Fire. Burst damage would NOT be the damage caused by Gravity Well. Or by Tractor Beam. Although both can be very damaging, that type of damage is better left in the damage over time category as it helps in overall understanding of Burst damage vs every other type of damage.

Whenever you strive to destroy an opponent you can assume one of two things will happen. You will succeed or you will fail. If you succeed you are done doing damage. You can imagine what that does for your DPS. But you succeeded! If you fail your opponent will start to answer that damage by healing it. You will likely suffer a drop in DPS, but not quite as bad as you are still shooting away. Just all your damage is being answered by healing. Your damage done will go up, your DPS will go up, your stats may look all pro, but you may never ever score a kill.

So how do we land damage on our opponents hull that they cannot answer? Really that's the question you are actually trying to find a solution to each time your goal is to destroy an enemy ship.

The tactical answer is to overpower our opponents defenses with so much damage in such a short amount of time that it isn't possible inside of game mechanics to answer effectively.

The science answer is to subvert our opponents defenses with so many different attacks upon them that they once again become unable to mount an effective answer to the incoming damage.

The engineering answer is to win by attrition. You will do ten damage. They will heal nine. You will win.

Tactical NEEDS a huge amount of burst damage to succeed as it is all they are using. Science and engineering ships are using other abilities that over time compound the pressure on the opponent to the point where the smaller burst capabilities of the science or engineering ships become sufficient to end the engagement.

So stop thinking dps for pvp. The question is are you able to use your abilities to position your opponent so that he is vulnerable to the burst potential of your ship? If so great. And that holds true if you are teamed. If you accomplish that you win, if not oh well.
If I don't respond to posts on this forum don't be offended. I don't sub or follow any of them.

Last edited by thissler; 07-31-2012 at 06:54 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 369
# 18
07-31-2012, 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thissler View Post
Somewhere this thread sort of got onto tactical captain vs science captain, and also tactical bridge officers and science bridge officers. And that would be okay except for the discussion quickly devolved into DPS knuckle dragging. More DPS is never the answer to any question outside of "How can I do more DPS?"
Erm...

Q: "How can I do more DPS?"
A: "More DPS."

...?

(I don't get it... though since I'm the one who posted the DPS numbers above, perhaps my Knuckle-dragging disposition is to blame?)

Also, since the OP stated "only 6 weps, and 2 tac slots seems a little weak" we can safely assume they're talking from a standpoint of "More Damage is better"...

Quote:
First suggestion, stop saying DPS. It really does more harm then good. DPS is simply a convention that was agreed upon that allowed for some sort of comparison between otherwise different abilities. It is an extremely weak tool. Burst damage is an excellent tool to use in this game.
I disagree.

"DPS" is perfectly fine to use in this game. It's a convention for a reason - 'the amount of Damage that can be Done in a Second' is immediately understood and can easily be used to compare the myriad of different weapons and abilities in this game which cause damage. How else would you compare the damage inflicted by a Cannon firing with that same Cannon Firing under identical conditions, plus Cannon Rapid Fire? Or compare it with the damage done by that Cannon under different Energy Weapon drain levels? Let alone compare it with the damage done by an entirely different ability such as Photonic Shockwave.

There are two "DPS" Conventions: The first is "Sustained DPS" - this basically translates to "attrition" damage, it's performed over a prolonged period of time; typically minutes. It can take a while to "build up" (example: Sensor Analysis) and therefore will be optimal versus things that don't try and dodge out of your firing arcs and have loads of hitpoints to whittle down. Most useful in PVE versus targets such as Borg Structures or Cubes.

The second is "Burst DPS" - this translates to "spike" damage, it's performed over a very short period of time; typically a few seconds. The idea is to try to kill your target before they have time to respond, or at least before they can start to mount an effective defence (by dodging out of range, CC abilities, healing over time, etc). It's therefore the favoured option for games with fast-paced PVP where jerk reflexes are king. [Skills like APA, BO3, ET3 and RSP make PVP combat in STO quite spike orientated and fast paced, but I will refrain from further commenting on the phrase "jerk reflex"]

Quote:
So stop thinking dps for pvp.
Engineering, Tactical and Science roles (not Captain job, but the different ship/build roles in a team situation) are certainly different, but I'd not downplay DPS as a Primary Concern for any of them. Whether that's Spike DPS ("Kill the enemy NOW!" Escorts?) or Sustained DPS ("Tank that you can't afford to ignore" Cruisers?).

Once you get the basics of your build in place (I want to buff and heal my teammates, I want to annoy or CC the enemy, I want to be survivable, etc.) then DPS should be your next concern - certainly your team's achievable DPS (over whatever period of duration you fancy), if not your own.

The classic example would be a team of tanks with insane levels of survivability but rubbish levels of damage output: they'll find it hard to ever score a kill, and the best they'll be able to achieve will be a stalemate. Likewise, a team of CC-ships with the ability to lockdown their enemies is very powerful, but might lack the damage output to finish those enemies off. However a team of "glass cannon" Full-Damage builds in theory could kill the enemy (but probably take a lot of losses doing so - encounters would get much shorter but more risky, so luck and reflexes would come into play very heavily here).

I'm not advising a focus on Damage Output above everything else, but I don't think it should ever be dismissed entirely or treated as an annoyance.

[ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]

Last edited by maelwy5; 07-31-2012 at 08:11 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 19
07-31-2012, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iampulsar View Post
but was hoping if somone could let me know if the recluse has any real PVP advantages over my beloved karfi, Sensor analysis, ...
I don't believe the Recluse Carrier has Sensor Analysis.

The Orb Weaver has Sensor Analysis.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,292
# 20
07-31-2012, 01:09 PM
There really aren't two DPS conventions. Its the weakest tool out there by far, you really can't get around it. Its a convention for one reason and one reason only. And I already stated it. It is sorta like you read my post, tried to restate it in someway, and missed.

"The tactical answer is to overpower our opponents defenses with so much damage in such a short amount of time that it isn't possible inside of game mechanics to answer effectively.

The science answer is to subvert our opponents defenses with so many different attacks upon them that they once again become unable to mount an effective answer to the incoming damage.

The engineering answer is to win by attrition. You will do ten damage. They will heal nine. You will win.
"

There you go. Almost your entire post in 3 points.

I've left out the bits where you say "dps is important but it isn't because its really spike or burst and its really in combination with other abilities to sorta kill your enemy if that's what you were really about in the first place."

DPS is garbage and using that as a start point or as a endpoint is garbage. I never say ignore or dismiss dps. Read the post. Here's something someone posted. And I'm sure this will get a "well that's not what I meant". But here it is. Some dps numbers.

Mk X Beam Array: 752.2 per shot (602 DPS)
Mk X Turret: 338.6 per shot (451.5 DPS)
Mk X Turret with CSV3: 587 per shot (782.6 DPS

Okay great. Over what time frame would this be? How many seconds outside of CSV3 do we need to go before beams once again overtake turrets? What if I used FAW of any rank? would that change things? How about even ONE Beam Overload 3? Do you think one Beam Overload 3 hitting for 60k in one second over the course of a 3 second encounter wins?

here you go, ill paste this over again too.

"The question is are you able to use your abilities to position your opponent so that he is vulnerable to the burst potential of your ship?"

And no i never go out in the sun, i have no friends, and i eat paste already so don't wish it on me.

Happy flying go shoot something.
If I don't respond to posts on this forum don't be offended. I don't sub or follow any of them.

Last edited by thissler; 07-31-2012 at 01:12 PM.
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 06:56 AM.