What's the general consensus: would Mk XI [Acc]x2 [CritH] be better or worse to use than the Mk XII [CritH][CritD][Borg] Tricobalts?
Considering the nature of Tricobalt torpedoes, I feel that the Mk XIs in this case are better due to the sharply increased likelihood to hit (and other benefits of excessive accuracy), but I might be missing something here. How does everyone else feel?
Please don't write me off by my join date, I am an anal theorycrafter and avid reader of other people's experience, and the result of my research is as follows...due to the conversion of overkill in accuracy to both critH and critD, it is widely believed (though sadly I've not seen any actual math yet to back this up, I'm working on that myself), that [Acc] is the ultimate modifier. [Acc] will always yield an increase in DPS, where some others are more situational (such as [Borg], despite the awesome proc, it won't do you much good against the Dominion). Against non-borg, I would EXPECT, but again I can't be 100% sure, that the mk XI would yield slightly higher dps, whereas against borg, I would expect the mk XII to yield higher dps (though probably not by very much). Consider moreover, that due to the significantly higher initial damage of Tricobalt, that additional Crit (of both forms, chance and %) will yield a bigger bonus than any proc. Personally, I would be more tempted by the mk XI if I didn't want to be swapping things in and out all the time. I'm not even 100% convinced that the [borg] weapon would outdo the mk XI against borg, but I have to assume that cryptic have ensured that it would.
As I said, this is educated guesswork, but I am confident in what I am saying (while still being open to a differing opinion, provided it can be backed up with some evidence).