Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
01-03-2012, 03:54 AM
Edit: Didn't mean to double post, sorry.

Ok, test using galaxy-X, display setting 125/50, expected setting 129/50 (could get this higher, but that would mean taking the time to respec and this is enough for the purposes of the test):

Firing 2 beam arrays, readings taken in the SS Azura mission on the frigates using mk I white phaser arrays:

Expected: 119
Actual: 115

3 arrays:

Expected: 109
Actual: 105

4 arrays:
Expected: 99
Actual: 95


4 arrays is already getting to the point where readings jump too much to be manageable, so no 5-8 tests, but I think the pattern is established.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
01-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
Edit: Didn't mean to double post, sorry.

Ok, test using galaxy-X, display setting 125/50, expected setting 129/50 (could get this higher, but that would mean taking the time to respec and this is enough for the purposes of the test):

Firing 2 beam arrays, readings taken in the SS Azura mission on the frigates using mk I white phaser arrays:

Expected: 119
Actual: 115

3 arrays:

Expected: 109
Actual: 105

4 arrays:
Expected: 99
Actual: 95


4 arrays is already getting to the point where readings jump too much to be manageable, so no 5-8 tests, but I think the pattern is established.
that's the usual result for a test like that. running 6-8 beams contently is when you see 135 make a difference. the lowest level your energy dips from sustained fire ends up being higher if you set your energy to 135 then if you set it to 125. at least that's what happened the last time i checked a few months ago.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
01-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
that's the usual result for a test like that. running 6-8 beams contently is when you see 135 make a difference. the lowest level your energy dips from sustained fire ends up being higher if you set your energy to 135 then if you set it to 125. at least that's what happened the last time i checked a few months ago.
The numbers may seem higher because the weapons may not be firing/cycling exactly at the same time. It not a huge difference, but enough to make it seem like it's not dipping as low as it should. You can continue to build as if the 135 still works, but IMO, it's a huge waste of resources when you could be spending it somewhere else.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
01-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latinumbar
The numbers may seem higher because the weapons may not be firing/cycling exactly at the same time. It not a huge difference, but enough to make it seem like it's not dipping as low as it should. You can continue to build as if the 135 still works, but IMO, it's a huge waste of resources when you could be spending it somewhere else.
This.

Your weapons don't fire together, but are staggered. This is why DHCs beat DCs in every area, they end their firing cycle and don't overlap with other weapons.

The reason I limited testing is because with a 5th beam, the overlap of the end of the first and start of the fifth is already small enough that the UI update doesn't reliably catch it. With 8 beams, the overlap isn't even there.

Edit: Repeat test, got somebody to help. Better results on a stationary target that didn't fire back

Same ship, same build. This test was done in private PVP against a star cruiser who took it like a champ. In more static conditions, the stagger doesn't space them out enough to completely eliminate overlap and you can get consistent 8 beams at once

125(129)/100
lowest power observed: 55
net drain from 125: 70
net drain from overcap: 74*


124/95
Lowest observed: 54
Net drain: 70

*- nice thing about this test is that the results are nonsensical if the power drain is from the overcap, which was also the case in the less controlled PVE test I had up for a few minutes where I couldn't reliably get more than 6 beams firing together - the drain was still nonsensical if it started from my 129 point
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
01-03-2012, 04:44 PM
As far as I've seen, the only time power surplus up to 135 seems to be used is for beam overload.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
01-03-2012, 05:34 PM
this is from memory, so the exact numbers may be off but i did detect a difference. my last test was a 6 beam broadside against some pve sponge with power levels set to something like 133-136 and then to 125. after shooting the npc till it died with power set to 135 i never saw my levels drop to the 60s. when i set it to 125 i did see my power drop to the 60s. the hard cap is proboly 125, but like i said i think the code is a mess and the envelope can be pushed a bit allowing for the results i last got.

this is from autofiringing by the way, not firing off 1 at a time to observe each beams drain, they were just doing their thing. so in actual battle setting to ~135 should help your dps a bit, at least for beam array using cruisers. also, power levels at ~150 and ~170 were also tested, but they did no better then the ~135 test. don't bother with higher levels then that.

i do have a theory, when i swap subsystem power presets i can see power values go past what should be their max for a transfer tick, and then they settle to their correct level. this could be happening to weapons power that recharges after a cycle ends, and there's a hole in the code that allows that overflow to go past the 125 cap. its only for a second though, so only 1 beam could take advantage of it when it happens. that's why my autofire tests get the results they do i'd wager.
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 07:53 AM.