Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,944
# 221
12-12-2012, 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
True. It would make sense that any vessel designed for space travel would have materials designed to protect it from said enviroment as much as possible.
Environment, sure.

Directed energy weapons, perhaps not so much.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 222
12-12-2012, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegeek View Post
Environment, sure.

Directed energy weapons, perhaps not so much.
Really? Considering how much unrestrained and raw energy can fly around in space at a given moment to strike a vessel, I would think energy dispurtion, absorption or reflection would be on the "need" list during the design phase nad such a design feature would offer some inherent defense.
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P

Last edited by bitemepwe; 12-12-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 223
12-12-2012, 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
I suppose you could make it a side effect of VM... The other question is the borg's assimilate ship... they can always seem to beam through your shields
Possibly they just run through all known frequencies when they Transport?
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,601
# 224
12-12-2012, 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
Possibly they just run through all known frequencies when they Transport?
Nah, whatever you are transporting would bounce off the shields and they would detect any successful transport causing them to remodulate forcing you to start again. whereas you use VM on a ship and it feeds back the shield frequencies although that would be overpowered because you can remodulate weaponry to cut directly through shields then making the stat worthless
Tacofangs is (genuinely) the best dev ever and the forumites adore him
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
# 225
12-13-2012, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegeek View Post
And, as I said, you can always equip Armor consoles to reflect that special materials are in use to deal with special energy resistance.

Why should we assume that all hulls are specially resistant to energy?

The Enterprise NX was an armored ship, I believe, reflecting the fact that they didn't have shields.

Should a freighter have the same energy resistance as a warship? I don't think so.
I have to admit, that is a valid point. We have to differ between the amount of damage a hull can take because of it sheer sizes and the amount of damage the a hull can withstand without being majorly damaged because of its armor.

So, then the logical step would be to increase the damage resistance of armor consoles against energy weapons, while keeping the kinetic armor values at the same level.


At the same time, hull values of cruisers should be moderately increased, so that these ship types profit more from a higher damage reduction than smaler escorts. IMHO the hull of the Galaxy or Sovergein cruiser should be minimum double as high as the hull of the defaint.

Another intresting system would be to give armor not a flat damage reduction but a health condition like for shields and hull and add a layered penetration system based on the condition of the highest layer.

Meaning: A starship takes shield damage. Based on the condition of the shield an amount of damage is given to the armor. If the shield fails, the damage goes directly on armor (like now on the hull). Based on the condition of the armor, damage goes to the hull, or better named as ship damage. Shields regenerate fast, armor already slower (slower than now hull damage can be reapaired) and hull/ship reapair would be quite time consumptive and could only be performed out of combat. Based on the damage on the hull/ship, there could be some malfunctions, e.g. lower energy output, decreaded total shield strenght, decreased weapon damage.

IMHO, this would make the damage system more intresting. But I doubt that Cryptic/PWE would introduce such a system ...

Last edited by xiphenon; 12-13-2012 at 01:07 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 226
12-13-2012, 04:38 AM
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by xiphenon View Post
I have to admit, that is a valid point. We have to differ between the amount of damage a hull can take because of it sheer sizes and the amount of damage the a hull can withstand without being majorly damaged because of its armor.

So, then the logical step would be to increase the damage resistance of armor consoles against energy weapons, while keeping the kinetic armor values at the same level.
Kahless knows thats for true. I'm tired of losing a percentage of my single Armor console due to diminishing returns. Its a vlaued Nuetronium at 17.5% that reads aproximately 12% when equipped. That makes no sense in the high DPS world of PewPew online. That missing percentage is needed.
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,686
# 227
12-13-2012, 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
Kahless knows thats for true. I'm tired of losing a percentage of my single Armor console due to diminishing returns. Its a vlaued Nuetronium at 17.5% that reads aproximately 12% when equipped. That makes no sense in the high DPS world of PewPew online. That missing percentage is needed.
The only catch here is that it would be easy to get 100% resist, and then you're invincible. I agree that the engineering consoles are a little weak. Maybe buff them so that hull resistance actually matters and is something you can increase to the point that you can survive without shields. I mean for crying out loud, I have the hull armor and kinetic resist skills maxed on my engi, and with 4 MK XI blue neutroniums, I still can only get up to 44% resist. Which against the borg is almost meaningless. And against players? Yeah, don't even bother. And here's the even bigger catch. Again, with defensive skills maxed, and with 4 mk XII PURPLE neutronium, I can only get my resists up to 47%. That's +80 to all energy and kinetic resist, with maxed skills. And with that I can only get up to 47%? Seriously? That's just wrong if you ask me.

With that +80 resist I would prefer to get at least 60% hull resist... And with the +70 resist from the 4 mk XI I would like at least 50% resist. Consider this: With 4 mk XII consoles that are specific, you can get up to 200 resist with a 5 console ship. That still only nets you 75% resistance to damage. And only a very specific damage. Which renders tanking a lot harder. Not impossible, but harder. However, thankfully the tier 4 omega shield passive makes tanking a lot less painful.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder. <--- DR proved me wrong!
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 228
12-13-2012, 07:17 AM
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
The only catch here is that it would be easy to get 100% resist, and then you're invincible.
I only want the diminishing returns to not effect the first console placed as it automatically devalues it against nothing else.
As one puts more consoles past the first on a build the diminishing returns can function as normal, so I do lose a little for having two or three of the same console.

As it stands now if I placed 4 completely different consoles to say covers a little of all teh energy types I lose effectiveness on each to a phantasm diminishing return that should not take effect until the 2nd of any type is placed on the build.

for example;

I have 1 Nuetronium, 1 Monotanium and two Ablative armors on a build.
I should see the Nuetronium as a 17.5% value on my ship before any skills are applied, not as a 12.5% value since this is the only Nuet I am equiping.

I should see the Monotnium as a 35% value on my ship before any skills are applied, not as a 27.5% value since I only have one equipped.

The Two Ablatives should suffer from a diminishing return effect on the second but not the first.

Curently this is not, in my experience, how this works in the game. We get penalized for using the first console alone just as we would if we had two equipped.
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 680
# 229
12-13-2012, 07:23 AM
[quote=bitemepwe;7068281]
Quote:
I only want the diminishing returns to not effect the first console placed as it automatically devalues it against nothing else.
As one puts more consoles past the first on a build the diminishing returns can function as normal, so I do lose a little for having two or three of the same console.

As it stands now if I placed 4 completely different consoles to say covers a little of all teh energy types I lose effectiveness on each to a phantasm diminishing return that should not take effect until the 2nd of any type is placed on the build.

for example;

I have 1 Nuetronium, 1 Monotanium and two Ablative armors on a build.
I should see the Nuetronium as a 17.5% value on my ship before any skills are applied, not as a 12.5% value since this is the only Nuet I am equiping.

I should see the Monotnium as a 35% value on my ship before any skills are applied, not as a 27.5% value since I only have one equipped.

The Two Ablatives should suffer from a diminishing return effect on the second but not the first.

Curently this is not, in my experience, how this works in the game. We get penalized for using the first console alone just as we would if we had two equipped.
Fundemental error - you're looking at the consoles and seeing percent values when they're integer values (at one point the tooltips did mistakenly have a "%" appended, but that's been fixed last I saw). That's the way the diminishing returns work on the armor consoles - they don't give you a percentage resist, but an integer value that's plugged into a formula somewhere in the background.

TBH, I'd prefer if they swapped the armor consoles over to a one console per ship (ablative, monotanium, neutronium are each different consoles and can all be equipped to the same ship, but no more than one of each) with a flat +% damage resist, but that'd cause critical whine mass because people could no longer have multiple neutroniums.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,499
# 230
12-13-2012, 07:45 AM
Armor formula and graph here:

http://www.stowiki.org/Damage_resistance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
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 03:24 AM.