Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 568
# 21
08-18-2012, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maelwy5 View Post
<snip>
You're doing it WRONG!

Build based on flawed idea is ... flawed.

People like the two of you are the reason we have those "Cruisers are useless" threads. You HAVE TO max out your dps, both to contribute towards group-dps AND to be able to generate enough threat to actually tank.
Gimp your damage, and all you do is be insignificant.
Umm... how should I begin to address this one?


Ok:

1. The two builds I posted contain 6 Tactical powers for the Tac Ody and 5 for the Sci Ody. You can shuffle the powers around a bit, but aren't going to find a workable Ody setup that has more DPS potential than that combination of BOFFs.


2. The only "utility" build I posted was an alternative combo for the Tac Ody, this was used to very good effect in 'keepaway' missions like CSE - it's capable of handling two Kang attack waves simultaneously, and both TBR and GW1 are actually pretty good for pulling hate from multiple targets. This is not the only workable alternative build I've used for an Odyssey.


3. That Weapons "Buffer power drain beyond 125" bit you mentioned as the basis for your argument?

(i) It only applies for beams.
(ii) The increase in DPS isn't nearly as noticable as it first appears, in fact, the extra DPS for every point over 125 drops off very sharply (and incidentally, the Tac Ody can hit 130 before you even start adding Weapons Power Consoles).

How do I know this?

I tested it personally quite a while ago. Note the spreadsheet.

Threat Control acts as a damage impact multiplier. A Cruiser using a reasonable amount of DPS will pull aggro off a well-kitted-out Escort, assuming that Escort does not also have points invested into threat control.

Myself and others have tested this, and debated it quite thoroughly in many previous threads.

You'll notice that there's quite a lot of debate in many of those threads linked between myself and ussultimatum: we're not just agreeing with each other for the sake of it here.

You do not NEED maximum possible defence, just as you do not NEED maximum possible Damage output. It's always helpful to try to push your DPS up once you've got the rest of your build sorted, but it shouldn't be the only thing you focus on.

Reasonable DPS and heavy investment into Threat Control is one half of making a decent Tank. Sufficient survivability and mobility are the other half. It's possible to cover both those halfs sufficiently and still have powerslots left over, especially on an Odyssey.

That's not to say there aren't some piss-poor builds flying around out there (and I've met most of them in PUG STFs - Cruisers, Carriers and Escorts - the Ody is no exception!) but don't judge what's POSSIBLE by what you've seen someone manage to do (or more likely, by what you've seen them "not manage to do")

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

Last edited by maelwy5; 08-18-2012 at 04:14 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 22
08-18-2012, 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maelwy5 View Post
Umm... how should I begin to address this one?


Ok:

1. The two builds I posted contain 6 Tactical powers for the Tac Ody and 5 for the Sci Ody. You can shuffle the powers around a bit, but aren't going to find a workable Ody setup that has more DPS potential than that combination of BOFFs.


2. The only "utility" build I posted was an alternative combo for the Tac Ody, this was used to very good effect in 'keepaway' missions like CSE - it's capable of handling two Kang attack waves simultaneously, and both TBR and GW1 are actually pretty good for pulling hate from multiple targets. This is not the only workable alternative build I've used for an Odyssey.


3. That Weapons "Buffer power drain beyond 125" bit you mentioned as the basis for your argument?

(i) It only applies for beams.
(ii) The increase in DPS isn't nearly as noticable as it first appears, in fact, the extra DPS for every point over 125 drops off very sharply (and incidentally, the Tac Ody can hit 130 before you even start adding Weapons Power Consoles).

How do I know this?

I tested it personally quite a while ago. Note the spreadsheet.

Threat Control acts as a damage impact multiplier. A Cruiser using a reasonable amount of DPS will pull aggro off a well-kitted-out Escort, assuming that Escort does not also have points invested into threat control.

Myself and others have tested this, and debated it quite thoroughly in many previous threads.

You'll notice that there's quite a lot of debate in many of those threads linked between myself and ussultimatum: we're not just agreeing with each other for the sake of it here.

You do not NEED maximum possible defence, just as you do not NEED maximum possible Damage output. It's always helpful to try to push your DPS up once you've got the rest of your build sorted, but it shouldn't be the only thing you focus on.

Reasonable DPS and heavy investment into Threat Control is one half of making a decent Tank. Sufficient survivability and mobility are the other half. It's possible to cover both those halfs sufficiently and still have powerslots left over, especially on an Odyssey.

That's not to say there aren't some piss-poor builds flying around out there (and I've met most of them in PUG STFs - Cruisers, Carriers and Escorts - the Ody is no exception!) but don't judge what's POSSIBLE by what you've seen someone manage to do (or more likely, by what you've seen them "not manage to do")
Let's start with the most important one you fail to understand:
PERMENANT Weapon Power, from settings, ship boni, consoles, skill ... is CAPPED at 125. No surprise your experiments didn't yield an increase. Because THAT is what you tested.
TEMPORARY Weapon Power, from batteries, EPtW, drain ..., WILL kick in as soon as drain would reduce Weapon Power below the cap.
There's a HUGE difference in how they are handled, and temporary increases cause MASSIVE increases in DPS.
Which is what you're losing out on.

The other thing I'm going to mention:
Yes, Threat Control works as a damage multiplier for threat, correct.
But! If you're dealing less than half the damage of someone else, you won't hold aggro - at least that's the limit I've found to be true. Max.
And if you're gimping your dps output, then any decent (DECENT) Escort will EASILY pull twice the dps of your gimp. Without even a single point in threat control, that's aggro on him.
And once that happens ... well, you've FAILED. You're now a low-dps boat with no purpose. 'Hope that we're talking slow-moving targets, so at least it won't run out of your firing arc.
(Or that the escort gets away, but that's still causing a massive loss for group dps, especially if people just blew their cooldowns.)

And, again, as you probably didn't read my reply to ussultimatum, which would have saved both of us a lot of typing ... While you don't NEED max defense, having it saves you having to bring more heals. Which can be replaced by EPtW for more threat and damage. Which is NEVER a bad idea.
Oh, and against a DECENT Escort/Raptor/BoP, you DO NEED all the dps you can generate. Especially with a Tac Captain in the Escort.

While PvE is easy enough that you can fail quite a bit and still succeed, there's really no need to ADVICE PEOPLE TO DO IT WRONG!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 568
# 23
08-18-2012, 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
Let's start with the most important one you fail to understand:
PERMENANT Weapon Power, from settings, ship boni, consoles, skill ... is CAPPED at 125. No surprise your experiments didn't yield an increase. Because THAT is what you tested.
TEMPORARY Weapon Power, from batteries, EPtW, drain ..., WILL kick in as soon as drain would reduce Weapon Power below the cap.
There's a HUGE difference in how they are handled, and temporary increases cause MASSIVE increases in DPS.
Which is what you're losing out on.
The sentence highlighted proves that you didn't actually look at the spreadsheet in the post I linked.
Go take a look, then re-read what you just wrote.

(The sentences surrounding the one highlighted are in fact wrong. There is no difference in how power bonuses get treated depending on whether they're from temporary or permanent sources. All of them raise the "settle value" of your weapons power by the same amount. The only exception to this is Plasmonic Leech, since it works by adding a small amount of power every few seconds instead of a large amount all at once)

Quote:
The other thing I'm going to mention:
Yes, Threat Control works as a damage multiplier for threat, correct.
But! If you're dealing less than half the damage of someone else, you won't hold aggro - at least that's the limit I've found to be true. Max.
And if you're gimping your dps output, then any decent (DECENT) Escort will EASILY pull twice the dps of your gimp. Without even a single point in threat control, that's aggro on him.
Where on earth are you pulling that "non-optimal DPS" = "50% of an Escorts DPS" from?
You're making up numbers.

As someone quite familiar to you pointed out...

"A decent cruiser will still deal 50-75% of an Escort's damage"

And frankly, as my primary Cruiser character also flies an Escort and has parsed many, many builds... I'd say that's lowballing it, at least in PVE where Huge levels of Spike Damage doesn't count for as much as high levels of Sustained Damage.


Quote:
And, again, as you probably didn't read my reply to ussultimatum, which would have saved both of us a lot of typing ... While you don't NEED max defense, having it saves you having to bring more heals. Which can be replaced by EPtW for more threat and damage. Which is NEVER a bad idea.
I suspect you've gotten your game terminology confused here.

"Defense" is a single form of damage mitigation. It's achievable primarilly by moving faster (though a few other things, like the Elusive trait add to this) and it caps out at 24 impulse speed. And as was pointed out earlier: you don't need defence against any PVE enemy, when you can park in front of the baddest foes and shoot them to death at point-blank range using just EPTS and Hazard Emitters.

If you're referring to damage mitigation in general rather than defence, then you're correct. Taking less damage means you need less heals. But pray tell: on which build have I taken a heal in place of a damage mitigation ability? Or even in place of a Tactical Ability?

You're not actually arguing with anyone but yourself here.


Although: RE your "NEVER a bad idea" comment... did you consider shared cooldowns? For example, by your own logic: should a Cruiser take EPTW instead of EPTS? And no, the answer isn't that you can run two sets of both at once. Particularly if you're going for "maximum damage" - consider Aux2Bat.

Aux2Bat shares a cooldown with EPTX, but when you slot the right DOFFs, it grants a substantial cooldown buff every 30 seconds or so (to everything, including Tactical Powers). You could run Aux2Bat and EPTW3, theoretically, but it'd make your cruiser a total lightweight in terms of survivability.

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

Last edited by maelwy5; 08-18-2012 at 05:52 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
# 24
08-18-2012, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
..........
hint: that data will be worthless.
Why?
Because all you've generated is data on how to deal a lot less damage than possible.
You don't use EPtW to get to 125 weapon power, you use it to buffer power drain BEYOND 125.

If your weapon power with EPtW up is 125 and you're using six beams, you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 75 (slightly more, but lets just go with this) power.
If your weapon power is 125 to start with and you use EPtW2 (~30 bonus weapon power), then you'd be firing at a sustained rate at 105 (slightly more, same as above) power.
I was asked to provide the data, and I have gathered it as best as I can. Since I treated both ships similarly, it will likely help give some determination of just what it can do, though with these facts in mind I will likely run a few more missions to see how it turns out.

If that's the case then this fact needs to be publicized much more.

Almost every post I have ever seen insists that any power over 125 is power that is wasted. If it acts as a buffer, then it really isn't "wasted," so this assertion does not tell the entire story. But from reading those threads it seems to have slipped off into the aether, never to be seen or heard from again.

However...

Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
People like the two of you are the reason we have those "Cruisers are useless" threads.
And attitudes like yours are why people don't post on the forums to ask things like why a rainbow cruiser is bad. There is a reason I am asking.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 25
08-18-2012, 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by red01999 View Post
However...



And attitudes like yours are why people don't post on the forums to ask things like why a rainbow cruiser is bad. There is a reason I am asking.
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data. And I've been letting that effect how I replied to you. That was wrong, and I, again, apologize.

The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly, with both beams and cannons, the results have been parsed both manually and using the current (and finally working) version of the ACT plugin, and the results matched.
If you look up the PvP forums, you'll see that people there make use of this quite regularily and with great success.

Problem being: this game has gone through a couple of incarnations in combat mechanics and skill changes already, and, like in so many other case where information gets outdated, people still believe the old versions and theories to be accurate and will just repeat them ad nauseam, with horrible harm to the people who listen and follow their advice.
Unfortunately, a very common issue in science, and less harmful but still annoying, in theorycrafting for games.


...


As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point. There's so many mistakes you made, that I'd be typing for a week to list all of it, and I'm not going to do so.
You can ask another time, and maybe I'll try to explain, but for now I can't see any indication that you're able to see that you're wrong. No sense going any further with this.
'Doesn't mean I'm out of this thread if further questions arise, though my replies to your posts will be restricted to pointing out where you're giving horrible advice, not in spending any effort to explain to you why.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 26
08-18-2012, 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data.
And where is your data to refute what Maelwy5 has put forward?

The answer is you have none.

Instead you'll hurl insults and hope other readers don't notice you have absolutely nothing to back up your argument except for CAPITAL LETTERS.



Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly
Yes, by Maelwy5.


Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point. There's so many mistakes you made, that I'd be typing for a week to list all of it, and I'm not going to do so.
You can ask another time, and maybe I'll try to explain...

Let me translate:

"I've run out of arguments, have nothing to back up what I'm saying so i will backpedal and fling insults in an attempt to discredit the other posters. Hopefully no one will notice I haven't put forward any data of my own because I don't have any data even 1/5th as complete as what Maelwy5 has put forward."
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 568
# 27
08-19-2012, 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
True. I'll have to apologize, to you at least.
I've been getting mad at maelwy5 and ussultimatum for the misinformation they spread, and the hairebrained way they "tested" their data. And I've been letting that effect how I replied to you. That was wrong, and I, again, apologize.

The math on EPtW though is correct, has been tested repeatedly, with both beams and cannons, the results have been parsed both manually and using the current (and finally working) version of the ACT plugin, and the results matched.
If you look up the PvP forums, you'll see that people there make use of this quite regularily and with great success.
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.


Quote:
As for the other two ... I'm done trying to argue with you. No point.
I most certainly agree.


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

Last edited by maelwy5; 08-19-2012 at 06:25 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 568
# 28
08-19-2012, 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by red01999 View Post
Almost every post I have ever seen insists that any power over 125 is power that is wasted. If it acts as a buffer, then it really isn't "wasted," so this assertion does not tell the entire story. But from reading those threads it seems to have slipped off into the aether, never to be seen or heard from again.
In an effort to get things straightened out a bit here:

I'm still interested in seeing your parses for the Sci Ody + Tac Ody.

I'm pretty sure that it'll come down to gameplay style (essentially: "do you spend less than 30 seconds before changing targets?"), the BOFF setup variations are more 'additional versatility' than anything else and actually tilt the scales slightly in favour of the Tac Ody.

Concerning the Weapons Cap, currently any power over 125 does not contribute to your firepower, but it does act as a buffer (for beams anyway). What that means is that excess weapons power will not make your shots fire at a level higher than 125, but when you're firing multiple weapons simultaneously your power levels will not dip down as drastically.

In terms of damage potential: if you're sitting at 125 without any additional power, your initial shot won't see any benefit, but later shots in your weapon cycle will. There's a severe dropoff in DPS-benefit-per-point-of-energy after about 135 as you can see from that old spreadsheet.

That 'severe dropoff after 135' bit is quite important - remember the MACO shield that everyone uses at endgame? It has a built-in passive power called "Power Conduit Link" which grants +2 energy whenever you get hit (and when tanking stuff, you're going to get hit a lot). This power bonus lasts for 15 seconds, and stacks up to five times... I think you can see where I'm going with this...

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

Last edited by maelwy5; 08-19-2012 at 07:20 AM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 29
08-19-2012, 10:33 AM
Quote:
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.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 568
# 30
08-19-2012, 01:19 PM
I'm going to ignore the bit about PVP threads, since it now appears unclear from your earlier statements what you mentioned them for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
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) I'm still not sure where you're getting this from, quite frankly. The way weapons power mechanics work in the game is that there is a single pool of energy - "Weapons Power" which can be at varying levels but is "hard capped" at zero and 125. The way the cap works is that extra energy over a certain value (currently 125 - it has been 135 in the past) is recorded, but not actually used in the damage calculations.

It doesn't matter what sources you use to raise this energy level. It could be Skillpoint investment into Warp Core Performance, or Efficient BOFFs, or EPTW, or Batteries, or Energy Siphon. The game knows no difference between the sources, it just knows it has X energy available to use at any given time. For the duration of any given buff period, weapons power is added to the pool, then when the buff expires it is subtracted again.

If it DID work the way you're suggesting, then you would see a difference in firing when under the effects of a weapons battery (try it: get to a high weapons value - say 135, then lower your weapons power to 60 and use a [+75] battery to get to the same level. If at these points you fire two beams simultaneously, you'll see the same results to your weapons energy readout in both cases. There IS a difference in DPS when you use EPTW, but this is due to the extra weapons skillpoint bonus from EPTW, not the Weapons Energy it grants being "temporary")

-----------------------

(b) Is the entire point of the test.

Beams use overcapped weapons energy to buffer/offset the energy reserved during weapons cycles. This is only in effect when you would otherwise dip below 125 weapons power. Beams do not get more damaging when you go over the cap (a beam fired at 130 weapons energy will not grant more damage than at 125) - the "hard cap" is still at 125.

-----------------------

(c) Use of EPS was neccessary to simulate higher energy levels because the ship I used could not go above 135 natively. EPTW was not used because the Energy Weapons skillpoint bonus would have skewed the results. Weapons Batteries were not used beacuase the effects were of too short a duration to cover the cycle period.

EPS grants a power recovery bonus, but this does not impact on your weapons firing cycle in the slightest - it's exactly the same mechanic as when you use an EPS Engineering console, known as a buff to your "Power Transfer Rate".

In the past (many seasons ago) EPS recovery DID impact your DPS - you couldn't fire more than a few weapons at a time before you started to run out of weapons energy, and everyone needed to run multiple EPS consoles. However this is no longer the case. For the past several seasons EPS Consoles have done nothing for weapons power recovery - they simply shorten the time it takes to move from one power setting to another.

From here - "As a result of this change to the energy drain mechanic, the EPS Flow Regulator Station Mods, will no longer have an effect on DPS. They will continue to function to improve power transfer rates between different systems."


It changed because the mechanic behind weapons fire changed:

Whenever you fire more than one energy weapon simultaneously, previously the energy was simply consumed. Currently, instead of being consumed it is "reserved" - a block of energy from your available pool is set aside temporarilly. Whilst it is being reserved, this energy is basically in limbo until it is released again (which takes place at the end of the weapons firing cycle).

So currently whenever you broadside something with beams, what happens is that each beam over the first one reserves weapons energy - this is listed in the UI as 10 energy each, so you can expect your weapons power to dip to by around 60 points when firing seven beams (there are slight variations due to rounding). The bug currently in place is that whenever beams reserve this weapons power they are ignoring the cap. They take their reserve from the UNCAPPED weapons power value. So if you have a "buffer" over 125 power, instead of your weapons energy always dropping to 65 during a broadside, it'll drop a bit less.

After the beams fire, they release their energy again and you'll rise back to normal levels (125). This is as a result of the energy being released, not a result of it being regenerated via Power Transfer Bonuses.

The only time power transfer bonuses come into consideration is after a Beam overload, which REMOVES energy rather than reserving it.


Quote:
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.
My target didn't die once during the test. If you read the main tab of the spreadsheet, you'll see stated quite clearly at the bottom that my target was a ship piloted by a second account.

This ship used no resistance buffs at all over the course of the test period, but to eliminate any passive buffs, I used the bracketed (pre resistance) values staken straight from the raw in-game combat logs, all the data from which which you can see dumped onto the other tabs of the sheet.



Quote:
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.
Abilities would skew the results in various ways and be unhelpful towards establishing a clean pattern. Although I have tested and quantified their effects elsewhere.

The purpose of the Weapons Energy test as stated in the thread linked was to investigate whether there was any effect on Beam weapon cycles whenever your ship has a weapons energy level of higher than 125.

The test proved that this "buffer" effect DID exist, and quantified the DPS benefit from energy levels of 115 through to 164. This coverage was sufficiently wide enough to enable me to establish an observable pattern, and it became superfluous to do any further testing.

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

Last edited by maelwy5; 08-19-2012 at 01:53 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 10:03 PM.