Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,043
# 11
03-12-2013, 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thlaylierah View Post
As an Engineer I know that higher power levels can be achieved by higher pressures in smaller devices so the old "Cruisers have more space" rule doesn't apply.
As an engineer you should also know that energy is not really "created", it is only converted from another state.
And that's precisely the problem: the bigger warpcore has a bigger output due to the fact it can trasform more matter/antimatter into energy in less time.
And that the bigger ship will have larger fuel reserves to burn through.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 12
03-12-2013, 07:54 AM
@ Stirling 191

Oh really?! You did read my ideas. That's odd...i can see from space where i've explained my Auxilary power changes i DID make a reference to tier base ships and the changes that would bring using Tyken Rift for example.

And fyi...i didn't insult you , i've just took the liberty to point out you didn't bother reading all of it. Now you would deserve to be insulted but i don't think it's necessary due to the fact you embarassed yourself by saying things that weren't true and sticking to that idea.

And to EXPLAIN AGAIN :

- currently WEAPONS DRAIN % of total power levels
a) You set 100 to your weapons (that means 100% power to your weapons system)
b) You fire a beam -10 ( 90% power available to weapons system, -20% weapon damage )

- my idea:
a) You set 100% power to the subsystem , 500 power available
b) All weapon drains are set to draw from the available power
c) You fire a beam that drains 10 power
d) Power levels drop to 490, that means 98% of power to the subsystem , -4% weapon dmg
My suggestions :
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=581161
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 13
03-12-2013, 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
@ Stirling 191

Oh really?! You did read my ideas. That's odd...i can see from space where i've explained my Auxilary power changes i DID make a reference to tier base ships and the changes that would bring using Tyken Rift for example.
Your words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
1) The introduction of a Power Capacity.

It's a obvious that a Cruiser should have the biggest power reserves, while the escort the lowest.
To make it easier to understand :

(random numbers to make it easier to comprehend...i could give a full table of values for every ship)
Cruiser : 1 000 power
Science : 800 power
Escort : 600 power.

The bigger the ship, the higher the power.

If all ships have %

weapons : 100
shields : 50
engine : 25
aux : 25.

That would make (cruiser/science/escort)

weapons : 500/ 400 / 300
shields : 250 / 200 / 150
engine: 125/ 100 / 75
aux : 125/ 100 / 75

......

Auxilary power
Power capacity / <unique number> = bonus to skills influenced by aux power. You should be able to feel the difference when using Tyken Rift 1 ,for example on a low class ship and on a tier 5 ship.

The current bonuses given by power to subsystems is unaffected by my addition (it just makes the levels harder to drop on cruisers and science vessels).
Please describe how in the above setting a ship of two different tiers, with identical power pools, would yield different results when using a singular power.

Saying one thing happens when that thing is contradicted by your own proposal doesn't really work.



Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
And fyi...i didn't insult you , i've just took the liberty to point out you didn't bother reading all of it. Now you would deserve to be insulted but i don't think it's necessary due to the fact you embarassed yourself by saying things that weren't true and sticking to that idea.
See above. And thank you for once again jumping straight to insults as opposed to actually trying to plug the holes you've left in your own proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
And to EXPLAIN AGAIN :

- currently WEAPONS DRAIN % of total power levels
a) You set 100 to your weapons (that means 100% power to your weapons system)
b) You fire a beam -10 ( 90% power available to weapons system, -20% weapon damage )
For the second time, weapons drain an absolute amount of power at present, not a set percentage. I don't know how to make it more clear than I already did. Relative percentage changes based on an absolute drain mechanic does not equate to a percentage drain mechanic. Your numbers are going to be fundamentally different with a weapon power setting of 75 or 125.

Last edited by stirling191; 03-12-2013 at 08:20 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 660
# 14
03-12-2013, 08:08 AM
People keep thinking that "cruisers are big, so they should generate the most power". It's scientifically and fundamentally wrong, and I've explained it more than once.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...21#post7893621

Sadly, you people never pay attention to the facts, and instead cling to your "cruisers r teh bestest" mentality.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 15
03-12-2013, 08:20 AM
1) Power capacity / <unique number> . Same power capacity in two different tiers could happen (although it's not in my table of values) but that would also mean that lower tier ship is less efficient.

Example : PC to the subsystem = 400.
Tier 3 ship has the unique number 8, the tier 4 has 5.

400/8 = 50
400/5 = 80

Pretty obvious if you ask me.

And let's say that 10 = 1% increase in damage. The tier 3 has 50% bonus damage, tier 4 has 80%.
A skill level 1 dealing 1000 damage, would deal on the tier 3 ship 1500 and on the tier 4 , 1800 dmg.

Still not clear?!

For the power levels please read :
http://www.stowiki.org/Starship_%28P..._Subsystems%29

This is the current power and subsystem scheme. First read this and then try to have a dispute with me based on power levels.

To make it even easier for you to understand , think about it this way.
Each ship has 2 generators that produce 100 % power (200% total power).
100+50+25+25 = 200% power.
When a weapon fires and drains 10 it will drain 10% of the total power a ship generator produces. My calculations are correct, the math is flawless and logic dictates these changes.

IF that would be the case , in real life, a beam fueled by energy produced by a nuclear plant would have to do A LOT more damage than a beam based on windmill energy.


@Euliffdavis..you do realise that we are fighting in space and even a fart would propel you into the sun..right?!
My suggestions :
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=581161

Last edited by legacyofdarkness; 03-12-2013 at 08:23 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 660
# 16
03-12-2013, 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
@Euliffdavis..you do realise that we are fighting in space and even a fart would propel you into the sun..right?!
You do realize that any computer capable of running an entire planet (referenced in both TNG and Voyager multiple times) can quite easily maintain a relative position in space via thrusters, reverse impulse, etc. Also, I'm pretty sure impulse engines in Star Trek don't work via conventional thrust, but rather by some method of gravity manipulation and/or generation. Hence why tractor beams were so easy - they're directed gravitons.

But that's enough random technobabble. I gave you genuine scientific fact, and you chose to completely ignore it. You'd need a MUCH BIGGER fart to propel your average cruiser-sized ship at any kind of noticeable speed than you would need for your average escort-sized ship. And you didn't even address relative power generation/consumption ratios.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 17
03-12-2013, 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
1) Power capacity / <unique number> . Same power capacity in two different tiers could happen (although it's not in my table of values) but that would also mean that lower tier ship is less efficient.

Example : PC to the subsystem = 400.
Tier 3 ship has the unique number 8, the tier 4 has 5.

400/8 = 50
400/5 = 80

Pretty obvious if you ask me.

And let's say that 10 = 1% increase in damage. The tier 3 has 50% bonus damage, tier 4 has 80%.
A skill level 1 dealing 1000 damage, would deal on the tier 3 ship 1500 and on the tier 4 , 1800 dmg.

Still not clear?!
Considering this is the first time you've elucidated the concept (notably that different ships have different modifiers as opposed to skills, consoles or ouigi boards being factored in). you've apparently been arguing from the beginning, yes it's clear. Next time you may want to make sure that what you're proposing actually matches what you say you're proposing, instead of leaving it up to your reader to have to fill in the blanks that you left.

To put it another way: don't get pissy when someone takes issue with you leaving pertinent details out of your own proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
For the power levels please read :
http://www.stowiki.org/Starship_%28P..._Subsystems%29

This is the current power and subsystem scheme. First read this and then try to have a dispute with me based on power levels.

To make it even easier for you to understand , think about it this way.
Each ship has 2 generators that produce 100 % power (200% total power).
100+50+25+25 = 200% power.
When a weapon fires and drains 10 it will drain 10% of the total power a ship generator produces. My calculations are correct, the math is flawless and logic dictates these changes.

IF that would be the case , in real life, a beam fueled by energy produced by a nuclear plant would have to do A LOT more damage than a beam based on windmill energy.
FFS. Do you seriously not know the difference between an absolute and a percentage based mechanic? Your -10 beam drain is going to be a fundamentally different percentage on a 75 setting than it will be on a 100 or 125 setting.

Hide behind the "every ship has 100 points to freely allocate to the four subsystems" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire premise of your current analysis of weapon drain is flawed. You don't make an entire argument about what happens when the power pool is 100 if the power pool can be anything from 25 to 200+ (in extreme circumstances).

Secondly, a directed energy weapon firing at a set yield is going to fire at a set yield, regardless of how the energy is generated. A gigajoule is a gigajoule, whether it's cooked up by nuclear fusion, anti-matter annihilation reactions, rowing slaves or ferrets on a wheel.

Last edited by stirling191; 03-12-2013 at 08:36 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 887
# 18
03-12-2013, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
Still not clear?!

For the power levels please read :
http://www.stowiki.org/Starship_%28P..._Subsystems%29

This is the current power and subsystem scheme. First read this and then try to have a dispute with me based on power levels.

To make it even easier for you to understand , think about it this way.
Each ship has 2 generators that produce 100 % power (200% total power).
100+50+25+25 = 200% power.
When a weapon fires and drains 10 it will drain 10% of the total power a ship generator produces. My calculations are correct, the math is flawless and logic dictates these changes.

IF that would be the case , in real life, a beam fueled by energy produced by a nuclear plant would have to do A LOT more damage than a beam based on windmill energy.
Your calculations are flawed, and that STO Wiki page is several years out of date.

For instance, this part at the bottom:

Quote:
Regeneration and EPS

The rate at which power is transferred between the subsystems is defined by the EPS (Electro Plasma System). Players are able to use an "EPS Flow Regulator" Engineering console to increase the rate at which the power is transferred between subsystems and how fast it is regenerated once spent. Engineering Captains can also use their career specific EPS Power Transfer ability to increase the power transfer rates for a short period.

For example; when firing a weapon such as a Beam Array, power is spent from the Weapons subsystem. This power is regenerated over time, and the time it takes for the subsystem to regenerate is based on the EPS modifier, so the higher the EPS power transfer rate is, the faster the power regenerates.
EPS has no effect on weapon power regeneration. It did, like 3 years ago. Then it was changed so weapons borrow a set amount of power (10 for a beam arrary) and that energy is immediately returned once the weapon stops firing. So you get all your weapons power back after the weapon cycles. There is no actual power drain that having high EPS would help with.

Someone should update that page on the Wiki. It is just perpetuating misinformation at this point.

Everyone here except you seems to already know that beam arrays use a set 10 weapons power, not 10%. Firing two beam arrays at 125 weapons power uses 10 power, not 12.5. Firing two beam arrays at 50 weapons power uses 10 weapons power, not 5.

You should do some in-game testing. Get an escort, fit two beam arrays and some plasma distribution manifolds, and go fight something. Try both the attack preset and the balanced preset, and watch your power levels. Just remember firing one energy weapon uses no power. Weapons power is consumed when multiple energy weapons are used during the same firing cycle.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 19
03-13-2013, 03:51 AM
Again and again :

And to EXPLAIN AGAIN :

- currently WEAPONS DRAIN % of total power levels
a) You set 100 to your weapons (that means 100% power to your weapons system)
b) You fire a beam -10 ( 90% power available to weapons system, -20% weapon damage ). This 90% i am referring to here is the 90 power displayed on your hud . 90% of the 100 is 90. Basic math.

- my idea:
a) You set 100% power to the subsystem , 500 power available
b) All weapon drains are set to draw from the available power
c) You fire a beam that drains 10 power
d) Power levels drop to 490, that means 98% of power to the subsystem , -4% weapon dmg. The 98% power here will mean you have 98 power displayed on your hud. Even more basic math
My suggestions :
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=581161
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,619
# 20
03-13-2013, 05:03 AM
Is there any of you reflectors who post 12+ pages posts on theoretical, abstract niche ideas that actually got anything into the game?

To me it seems you'd try to sell the idea first, then work on it, not spend the weekend cooking up a PhD in crawl spaces color on the second step on the ladder, on the tos bridge - before you know if it sells..

I think your best bet is to first off, do the opposite of what you are doing; less is more and second, always start a post with "Lockbox.." followed by the name of the project in short words or phrases.
You will defnitely want to catch attention using the thinking of your audience, in this case developers.
So consider simplicity, logistics of creating and implementing and balancing but more than anything the possible profit - how would you sell it, how many would buy it, would the time spent doing it be worth more than the profit.

Lastly I suggest you try to think of many ideas instead of many details of 1 idea.


Because here is how your post looks to a pragmatic activist such as myself;

"Change ship stats"

It's going to be a royal pain to do in terms of balancing, it's going to take a lot of time, it's going to upset people who already spent money on their current stats.
And lastly, how would you charge people for it?

You'd direct people to jump off a huge cliff for exactly zero profit, it's russian roulette for no money my friend.
http://i.imgur.com/7lZe6A0.jpg
We no longer include the forums, or players in general - tacofangs
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 03:39 AM.