Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-01-2010, 04:29 PM
The lack of units on numbers in the tooltips and info screens is a widespread problem. I hope the fix addresses this globally, because a naked "0.1" is about as misinforming as "10%". Both beg the question "0.1" or "10%" of WHAT?

There are other modifiers in traits granting accuracy and hold/placate resistance that are similarly opaque. Will they get some attention too?

And on a related note, I have been asking around about "Toggle (Max N)" and something about ".1/.1 energy" on the info screen if you right-click a space weapon. What do these things mean and can they also get some attention?

I'm sure these numbers all make immediate sense to people on the inside of Cryptic; if you know the engine or the mechanics, it's obvious what that number plugs into. Since players don't (and arguably shouldn't) know the intimate details, there needs to be a consistent language--including units or specifiers like "adds to engine power"--in the documentation and in the tooltips/info screens.

There's one more challenge; mechanics like space combat and the properties of weapons are changing from patch to patch; e.g., at some point--and I can't find the release note that includes it--cannons stopped having a shared cooldown. Such changes can impact documentation like tooltips, so it's a moving target as well as being a big one.

In happy wonderful fantasy land, we could take the underlying approach of the self-documenting game a step further: The icon for anything that changes substantially would glow or something, and I'd know to go in and look at the tool tip. Something similar is how LOTRO uses a badge to let you know a skill hasn't been dragged to the hot bar yet. Unfortunately it's not smart enough to put up a different badge to let you know it was on the hot bar and one point but it's not anymore.

But for now, I'd just be happy with all the bare numbers out there covered up and decent with the right units or qualifiers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-01-2010, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleriel
this question is not entirely relevant to the resistances... but more to do with the way things are calculated...

Why aren't you using this type of formula for ship manoeuvrability?
as it is right now, one RCS console has more effect for an escort ship (that in all honesty does not really need it) than it does for a cruiser (that does in all honesty need it).
(notice, I said 'one RCS'.. every RCS after that will have diminishing returns compared to the first one)...
end result: escorts can become spinning tops of death (death blossom?), and a cruiser will always be slugging, no matter what you do.
Honestly? I can't even begin to explain that, as it's not my area of expertise. I don't know how maneuverability is calculated, but I do know that to call it "diminishing returns" is a dramatic oversimplification, and as far as I know, maneuverability does not have diminishing returns at all.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the formula for computing ship maneuverability is far more complex than the one for damage resistance.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-01-2010, 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mineria
yes, i understand that but why diminishing returns, why not a cap?
Actually, the formula above isn't really a diminishing return. Its does diminish the return in terms of how much "resistance" you get, but resistance itself is something that doesn't state the true return on investment simply.

Suppose the devs rated weapons based on how many attacks it took to destroy some target. So lets say the base phaser did 100 points of damage, and it took ten hits to destroy a 1000 point target. So this is a Mark10 weapon. If we buff it by about 11%, it will do 111 damage, and take about 9 attacks to destroy that target. It becomes a Mark9 weapon. I'd have to buff a Mark9 by about 12.6% to get its damage up to about 125, whereupon it takes 8 hits to destroy that target and it becomes a Mark8. It then takes 14.3% buff to make a Mark8 into a Mark7, then 16.7% to make that into a Mark6, and finally it would take a 50% buff to make a Mark3 into a Mark2.

Ok, so when I go from a Mark10 to a Mark9 to a Mark8 to a Mark7, is that a nice even buff or is that an accelerating buff? Suppose it cost you 11 credits to upgrade a Mark10 into a Mark9, but 50 credits to upgrade a Mark3 to a Mark2. Would you consider that "diminishing returns?" It kinda is, but then again you're paying 11 credits for an 11% buff, and then 50 credits for a 50% buff. Isn't that basically full value for your money?

In the same way, the jump from 10% resistance to 20% is not the same thing as the jump from 80% to 90%. The latter is worth more than the former. So it should cost more. The dev formula actually makes the return on investment in terms of damage mitigation about equal to the cost. Its only a diminishing scale when you measure mitigation by points of resistance, but obviously higher points of resistance are worth more to the players so its not a good measure of value. So higher points cost more. Or if you want to look at it that way, you get less points of resistance for the cost, but about the same amount of extra damage mitigation.

So why not a cap? This way, the more you spend the more you get in return. With a cap, expending any more effort returns nothing, and if you didn't know you hit the cap you'd just waste the effort. With the "diminishing returns" system you always get something for your investment in effort, you just don't get to go to infinity by spending enough, which is sort of what 100% resistance is: its basically infinite survivability (in the sense of 100% resistance meaning you take zero damage).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-01-2010, 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mineria
yes, i understand that but why diminishing returns, why not a cap?
More than one reason really. It means that as the game progresses there is less or no need to re structure, the cap (100%) can never be reached. So no one is prevented from still getting more of a stat but ultimately are restricted in that they can not be over powered.
It also benefits people at lower levels so they can get decent returns to begin with without easily exploiting. It favours using a wide range of abilities and makes min maxing less easy and less of a worry for devs and other players. While sometimes hard to grasp and frowned upon, the diminishing returns is something incorporated into a lot of things for the better.

Even in cap situations you often find a soft and hard cap, i.e. a soft cap where the diminishing returns begin and a hard cap where no more use is gotten from a stat. If no cap is introduced then the diminishing returns ensure that the 100% cap is unreachable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-01-2010, 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedensuscg View Post
Players hate caps. they hate to be showed, "here, this is how far you get get...period."
Hence why all the Cruiser Captains were so ticked off by the crippling lack of maneuverability/turn rate on their Space Barg^H^H^H^H Ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-02-2010, 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoxe
Honestly? I can't even begin to explain that, as it's not my area of expertise. I don't know how maneuverability is calculated, but I do know that to call it "diminishing returns" is a dramatic oversimplification, and as far as I know, maneuverability does not have diminishing returns at all.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the formula for computing ship maneuverability is far more complex than the one for damage resistance.
I realize that was somewhat unfair of me, putting you on the spot like that... but in the interest of continuing the conversation...
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=108136
it's a pre season-one patch thread.. so the turning will be slightly better now (with the +1 point to cruiser turnrates and the heavy cruiser skill).

Here's the 'important stuff':
Quote:
+% Actual Buff Effect = { 1 - [ 100 / ( 100 + Combined Buff Values ) ] } * 100

Exporation Cruiser ... NO SKILLS: Turn Rate 5
Exploration Cruiser ... Max Skills (+100, as above): Turn Rate 7.5
Exploration Cruiser ... Max Skills with +30% Turn Rate Device (1): Turn Rate 7.826
Exploration Cruiser ... Max Skills with +30% Turn Rate Devices (2): Turn Rate 8.077
Exploration Cruiser ... Max Skills with +30% Turn Rate Devices (3): Turn Rate 8.276
Exploration Cruiser ... Max Skills with +30% Turn Rate Devices (4): Turn Rate 8.438

So with comparison analysis, it is clear that:

Your baseline skills can add up to +2.5 Turn Rate all on their own.
Adding a Turn Rate Device increases your Turn Rate by another 0.326 above skills.
Adding a second Turn Rate Device increases your Turn Rate by another 0.251 beyond the above.
Adding a third Turn Rate Device increases your Turn Rate by another 0.119 above the above.
Adding a fourth Turn Rate Device increases your Turn Rate by another 0.162 above above.

Defiant - No skills = 17
Defiant - Full skills = 25.5
Defiant - Full skills + 1 30% turn console = 26.61
Defaint - Full skills + 2 30% turn consoles = 27.46
Cruiser Full skills: +2,5 ... Escort Full skills: +8,5.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-02-2010, 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleriel
I realize that was somewhat unfair of me, putting you on the spot like that... but in the interest of continuing the conversation...
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=108136
it's a pre season-one patch thread.. so the turning will be slightly better now (with the +1 point to cruiser turnrates and the heavy cruiser skill).

Here's the 'important stuff':

Cruiser Full skills: +2,5 ... Escort Full skills: +8,5.
I read that thread a bit back, nice read, it does outline the fact that cruisers aren't supposed to turn very well.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-02-2010, 03:22 AM
I was going to chime in on diminishing returns from the point of view of a former career sailor with a focus on navigation and ship handling... but suffice it to say I know from first hand experience that you can throw millions of dollars and thousands of hours at an engineering feat to make something more maneuverable (as an example)... but the more you do... the less return you get. It's just a fact of engineering.

Especially when it comes to maneuverability.... I'm actually surprised how well my cruiser handles compared to an escort... especially seeing as the cruiser has a mass at least 1000 times that of an escort. It's actually quite an engineering feat to make a single device work only 3 times better in an escort than it does in a Cruiser. The volume increase in the cruiser may only be 100 times... so very simplistically, the best you could hope for is to add 100 of those devices and hope for 10% effectiveness.

I wish I could make a 4000 ton ocean going ship maneuver a third as well as a 40 ton ship. But it just ain't gonna happen... not in real life. In this game... it's just about right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Why diminishing returns? Why does it help escorts even more than Cruisers when cruisers need it more?

Diminishing returns so that when you stack things you can't make an 'uber - whatever' ship - cruisers have better hulls, crews, and shields than Escorts so it would be (simply) perverse to allow a cruiser to outmanoeuvre an escort or outgun it (level ships, natch). The diminishing returns idea allows you to reduce a percieved weakness somewhat, provided you are willing to trade something for it - I doubt you'll find that many escorts running a console to help them improve their turn rate when there are other consoles that are far more useful... and escorts aren't exactly replete with eng consoles...you'll probablyt find them running something a bit more useful in the energy transfer line.

It's a move to make sure that, ultimately, you play your ship class as that type of ship - in my cruiser I got really fed up with the continual loss of manoeuvre, I saw escorts turn on a dime and deal shredding death in seconds, I rolled an escort and now dream wistfully of the hull and shields my cruiser had.... that's the game, make the most of what you have. All ships have good and bad points, what you fit has a large impact on what you can do with them....you really have to work at it to find the optimum, and if what you got doesn't suit then reroll your character(s), it isn't as if it takes forever to get back up the ranks, is it?

Here's an example - earlier today I did one of those 'explore 3 systems' missions from DS9, on the third system I was up against 5 or 6 sets of Casrdassians or whatever, and as I started (in my Tac Escort) another Tac Escort arrived and teamed up. (S)he was minus1 level to me. I shredded wave 1, the other player (TOP hereon in) seemed to hang back. I shred wave 2, didn't notice TOP much. I stopped off to sort shiled regen etc out, TOP had zoomed ahead and was fighting wave 3....I arrived, TOP had knocked badguy 1 down to about 98%, so I shredded wave 3. Wave 4 I sat back to see what would happen, TOP wasn't shy about engaging, but was doing hardly any damage at all - I killed wave 4 after a bit and actually sent 'is something wrong?' After no reply I asked 'what is your fwd loadout?' (or similar) - no reply. I then shredded wave 5 and left.

Now we both had Tac Escorts, my tac escort took down just about every ship (may have been all of them) and the other ship did, as far as I could tell, virtually no damage - I'm sure TOP would like to do damage, they probably went away wondering what the heck I had fitted (disruptors and cannon rapid fire is the main ingredient), but the point is that my ship is good at damage - when I point it the right way - and theirs was some sort of ice cream van or something. It's all about fitting your ship out and playing to the strengths of your ship type... and I AM PANTS at it, compared to many, I also have slow reactions, I panic too much, and when I'm trying to press 'run away, hide, restore shields and please let somebody sit *** on to me in front at 5km' I'm actually pressing the 'select tribble to breed from ' button and playing elevator music by mistake.

Play what you got, or roll what you want.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-06-2010, 11:38 AM
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 10:07 AM.