I disagree categorically. The proposed approach is mirrored in several real-world instances. Read up on the Pareto Principle, Marginal Value Theory and the Law of Diminishing Returns. There are examples in biology, chemistry, applied engineering and economics just off the top of my head.

The basic idea is that the more scarce a resource becomes, the more energy it takes to gather that resource. Eventually there is a practical limit to how much can be collected even though there is still some of the resource left.

From my own experience in pharmaceutical production and analytical chemistry - getting those last few percentages of purity take so much effort, time and resources that i just becomes a waste. But customers who want or need that purity pay out the nose -- severely. So IMO this approach is good design, precisely logical and forward thinking.

(just IMO)

(And one wanders why the cost of pharmaceuticals are so outrageous... I don't. )

Agreed that the design change seems like a good idea. Not sure if it was just worded poorly, but it looks as if the returns will be taking a huge hit. If the drains were set at a fixed percentage they would never drain a system to zero if the amount drained was a function of the percentage drain applied to remaining power. In other words, if you try to walk from your front step to the street by going half the distance each time, you will never reach the street.

If we diminish the percentage as well as the inherent decrease drains could very quickly approach a point where they drain very little.

Not knowing how the drain mechanic works in the first place it is sorta hard to say. It seems like on the attackers end, the system comes up with a hard number for how much it is going to drain and then this number is worked over by the targets resistances. So we have a system that is crushing versus lower power systems and worthless against high power systems. A 25 point drain on a 50 power target is a 50% drain. On a 125 power target it is only 20%.

If the attacker generated a number that was a percentage and then that number was worked over by the targets resistances your system would be equally effective across all of the defenders power levels in that it would always drain the same percentage of power. It would be more useful against targets with higher power levels and less useful against those without.

Consider that most of the really neato things with high power levels start to become evident after 75 or so. From 75 on down you're living in mediocre land. Not dreadful and won't kill you, but mediocre. So a fifty percent drain would take someone out of the top benefit levels of power supply, but wouldn't crush them.

But anyway I think they just have a cumbersome system in place and now trying to get it to emulate a percentage drain is going to be tricky.

Cheers.

I like this. This seems like a well-conceived and balanced answer to an obvious problem. Thanks for what you do, J-man. Keep it up guys!

Perhaps an optional flag on the drain as to a minimum value to drain, in the case of time or activation-limited abilities (ie. Energy Siphon never drains less than 1/3 of its max value)

Or a floor threshhold for power of the target, for a gift that keeps on giving like Siphone Drones, so that they can take you to that point, and no lower. You'd need another method to drop people further.

In any game I hate "disable or root" features and while in STO space I find that the "hold" abilities are quite ok, the drain via pets is just plain anyoing in PVP.

I play a Sci captain in an RSV. The first day I played PvP I ran into a carrier, and used FAW I and Photonic Shockwave II to counter the drones. All good. I lost, but not because the drones were overpowering me, just because the Klingons were better. The next day was the patch that 'fixed' FAW, and it became virtually useless against a carrier: the beams missed most of the drones, and by the time I could clear them the carrier had respammed drones much faster than the cooldown on PSW.

But okay, I'm a noob. There must be a counter. I just need to learn more about this game.

So, loaded torps fore and aft with 2 copies each of TS and PSW. The carriers can spam drones faster than the cooldown on Torpedo Spread I and II, and with fewer beams to be missing the drones, they have little to no trouble moving in on me, being faster than my recon science vessel. Also being small and maneuverable, they are extremely difficult to target individually so that killing more than 2 every thirty seconds is difficult with torps. And again, the respawn time on drones is far faster than my defensive fire or the cooldown on PSW can accomodate.

It takes a Kar'fi about six seconds to take me out: three to drain my power to 0, and three to hit my unshielded squishy hull with let's say, a tetryon turret? Who cares what weapons it has loaded. It's targeting an immobile and unshielded target that can't even shoot back in the one torpedo reload cycle between first strike and obliteration.

So, for those of you defending the drones by claiming it's our poor builds and poor play: I admit it. I'm a noob. Please teach me a viable strategy to deal with drones. I currently cannot survive long enough for my team to be able to react to my situation, and I have no idea how to defend against this.

Tested Triibbles changes concerning Siphon drones.. With 12 Advanced Siphon Drones (The new Rare ones from Dilithium Store on tribble) I didn't get my targets power settings below 10 each. Not sure what 24 Drones would have done.

so he had at least 10 power in all systems? with that many on him? and that's with the even more powerful ones? well, that's an improvement i guess. but with only 10 power you are just under the illusion that your not completely disabled, ya pretty much still are.

What happened when the target popped a battery? What about EPS Transfer? Was the energy still removed as quickly, back to 10, as it is currently on holodeck?

I didn't try a battery; I'm a Tac; and power drain was almost instant. Oh, and wait till you see what all the other new spam can do.