Go Back   Star Trek Online > Star Trek Online Forums > Starfleet Shipyards > Cruiser Class Starships

Reply  
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-19-2010, 01:41 AM   #1
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default Comprehensive Weapon Energy & Build Testing

Note: Due to the weapon changes that have occurred since I performed my tests the information below is now out of date! See this post for more up to date information on weapon damage scaling. I believe the Build Tests should be still in the right ball park, but they are probably no longer entirely accurate.

Introduction
For the past several days I have been running tests of various weapon load outs using the game's combat log, and a parsing program. These tests were inspired by the discussion toward the end of the Turrets on Cruisers thread.

Originally I was very skeptical about the viability of a turrets build, based on this (now outdated) theory (thanks to Fluhi for posting it!) of how weapon scaling should work. Actual in-game testing proved that the extreme damage drop off predicted did not occur under actual game conditions. There is damage drop off, so weapon efficiency is reduced when more weapons are added, but for various reasons that I'll go into later, the decline curve isn't as steep as I originally feared.

As a result of that discussion of beams vs turrets, I decided to test a variety of builds to see how they actually stacked up. While there were a lot of personal opinions and anecdotal evidence, there appeared to be little hard data available. With these tests I hoped to remedy that.

Contents

The rest of this post will be divided into six parts:

Part I: A primer on how energy drain works in the game, and specifically how the drain of multiple weapons affects damage. Some of this information you probably know, other parts you may not know. I recommend at least skimming this before moving on to the rest of the post. Hopefully this will dispel some of the misconceptions people have about energy use.

Part II: This covers the data I have collected on weapon efficiency scaling for beams and turrets. This is the key to the diminishing returns seen as more weapons are added.

Part III: A short section describing my testing methodology for the build tests. If you want to recreate my results for whatever reason, this should tell you how to do it. Even if you can't match my exact skill setup, by following these methods, you should be able to come with results that are similar, even if the exact numbers are not the same.

Part IV: The actual build tests are presented here. This is probably the section people are most interested in. These are tests of base damage only, with no additional skills used. I may run tests of different combat skills in the future, but if I do that will probably be added in a separate section.

Part V: Here I offer some commentary about the various builds, what I discovered, whether something surprised me, or turned out more or less as I expected. In addition, I also offer some pros and cons for each of the builds, and make suggestions of how to use each to the greatest effect.

Part VI: Conclusion and future testing plans.

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 09:49 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:41 AM   #2
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Note: Due to the weapon energy changes that have occurred since I wrote this guide, the information below is now out of date. See this post for a more up to date guide on Weapon Power.


Part I: The Principles Of Weapon Energy Use

Note: All of the information below only pertains to energy weapons. Mines and torpedoes require essentially no power to operate, and their damage is not impacted by your energy level!

A) The Basics Of Weapon Energy Drain

One misconception that some people seem to have relates to weapon energy drain. All weapons after the first draw 10 energy when fired. For example, if your power is set to 100 and you fire one beam, your power will remain at 100. Firing a second beam results in your power dropping to 90; a third to 80, and so on.

While a weapon is active, the energy it uses it locked and cannot be recovered regardless of your energy regen rate. Once a weapon goes into cool down, only at that point can the energy it was using be recovered.

I am pointing this out because a popular misconception is that more EPS flow regulator consoles will allow you to support more weapons. EPS flow regulators only help once a weapon has stopped firing. At that point, if your EPS flow is high enough, you will recharge to maximum energy before your next shot. Beyond that point EPS flow regulators will have no effect one way or another in terms of your damage output. If your regeneration is sufficient, you should instead try to increase your overall weapon energy, instead of running with an excessive amount of EPS flow regulators.

B) How Energy Drain Affects Damage
So, you might be wondering, why does your weapon energy level even matter? The reason for that is it directly impacts the amount of damage your weapons generate. At 100 energy, your weapons do 100% of their potential damage. At 80% energy, their damage is only 80%; at 50% you're only doing half damage; if your energy its zero you will do no damage, and so on. It's also possible to do more than 100% damage-- up to 125% damage by raising your weapon power up to the cap of 125.

As you can probably see, this makes your weapon energy levels very important, and it is this factor which is central to the performance of multiple weapons, which is what the focus of most of my testing here.

C) Firing Additional Weapons Results In Diminishing Returns Due To Increased Energy Drain
If you fire a single weapon at 100 power, it will do its full damage*. However, the additional energy drain of each weapon you add after that, reduces not only its own damage, but the damage of all of your other weapons.

*Technically it's been pointed out that weapons actually do their base damage at 50, and twice as much damage at 100. Consider what is being discussed here to be percent of your potential damage, which is actually double the base.

Here is a simplified example of how this works (don't stop reading after this example or you will not have the full picture):
If you fire one beam at 100 energy, it does 100% damage. If you add a second beam, energy drops to 90, so both do 90% damage. Still you have two beams, so you're doing 180% of the damage you did before. With three beams, energy now hits 80, each beam only does 80% damage, for a total of 240% of what a single beam would do, as opposed to 300% if there were no energy drain.

We're starting to see diminishing returns already. Now, let's scale all the way up to six beams. Energy is reduced to 50, while all the beams are operating. That means each only fires at 50% effectiveness, for a total of 300% damage-- not all that much more than the 240% provided by only 3 beams.

If you keep adding more beams you can theoretically end up doing less damage than if you had fewer weapons. At eight beams, power is reduced to 30%, for a total of 240%, the same as only using 3 beams.

Don't panic though, at least up to 6 weapons, my testing has shown that you will always do slightly more damage by adding another weapon, provided you are set to at least 100 Weapons Energy. Also, this only applies to weapons firing at the same time.
Here is a chart that shows an actual example of this diminishing returns effect. You might notice that the numbers are not quite as bad as you would expect from the simplified theory above. I'll explain why in a minute.

D) Decreasing Weapons Power Results In Even Worse Weapons Performance
The negative effects of firing additional weapons is much worse if you run at power levels less than 100. If you fire six weapons at 50 power, your energy will be reduced to zero, meaning none of the weapons produce any damage (you'll see results of zero in your combat results).

If you are going to run with weapon power at 50, then you shouldn't fire more than one or two weapons (if necessary, manually activate a couple of them, instead of using fire all)!

E) Increasing Weapons Power Means You Can Support More Weapons
Conversely, increasing weapons power above 100 means you can support more weapons with less of a downside. If you want to see some basic math examples of this, check the theory thread above. But a major point that needs to be made here is the benefits of increasing weapon power beyond 125. Yes, it is possible, and it does make a difference.

While your energy level is capped at 125, the cap is applied after taking into account weapons drain. As a result, if you increase your effective energy level above 125, you can fire additional weapons at higher power levels. If your energy level is 135 with bonuses, then you can fire up to two weapons without dropping below the 125 cap, or you could fire six weapons without dropping below 85 energy. The difference this makes for damage output is immense!

Theoretically if you could increase your weapons power to 195, you could even fire eight weapons all at 125% effectiveness!

There is one odd quirk you will encounter when you run with power over 125. When you first activate a weapon your power will momentarily drop, but then it will almost immediately regenerate. I think this may be because the initial energy drain is subtracted from the capped value, but the actual "locked" energy is calculated from the total energy level.

F) In Actual Practice, Things Aren't Quite As Bad As In Theory

Now, for a couple of reasons, things don't work out exactly like in the simplified example above. As a result of this, the diminishing returns from firing additional weapons are slightly less drastic than the numbers presented there. Please note, I said less drastic: the decline in effectiveness is still very real! The good news is, you can pretty safely add up to 6 weapons without worrying about actually reducing your damage output (although the utility of the 6th weapon can be borderline).

First of all, when you activate all your weapons, they don't all fire instantaneously, instead they fire one after another. Also, it appears that energy doesn't drain out immediately. As a result, the first couple of shots will fire at full power, the next shots will be slightly reduced, and the next still further until your energy has bottomed out. Beyond that point weapon energy has been drained and all shots will be made at reduced damage until the end of the cycle. Here is a link to a graph of one of my combat logs, where you can see this "stair step" pattern.

Secondly, not all weapons will be active at the same time. Due to limitations of the "fire all" command, or the timing of when the button is hit, your weapons fire will end up being staggered somewhat. Some will be firing while others are in cool down, and thus your average weapon energy level will be higher. Beam weapons are only in cool down approximately 20% of the time, so the impact this has for them is fairly limited. With Turrets, their faster cycle time means they are in cool down a full third of the time, so there we see a greater impact. In practical terms, what this means is that turrets are slightly more energy efficient, and have a lower average energy drain over time.

Ideally, one would try to stagger weapons fire so that the least amount of weapons fire at once. With three turrets, for example, you could theoretically fire one each second and have it so that only two are ever active at the same time, reducing energy drain by a third for each of them. Realistically, doing that manually would be extremely difficult, so you would have to use some sort of macro. Whether that is something you want to do, I make no recommendations one way or the other.

G) What All This Means
While the drain from additional weapons is slightly reduced by the factors I mentioned, the general principle is still sound. Especially as you get up to 7 or 8 weapons you run the very real risk of actually lowering your damage output by adding weapons.

Another consideration is that adding a weapon with low base damage, such as a turret, can potentially reduce the damage of a dual beam build, because the turret adds less damage than its drain subtracts from the higher base damage of the beam banks.

One thing to keep in mind is that only weapons firing at the same time will drain your energy. If you equip a dual beam bank in the front, that won't fire when you are broadside to the enemy, so it won't drain the energy of your side arc weapons. A beam equipped in the rear also won't fire in your frontal arc, etc.

Along those same lines, cannons, due to their global cool down, will never fire at the same time. For energy drain purposes, cannons can be considered to be only a single weapon.

The general principle of just slapping as many weapons on your ship as possible may not work out that well. If you don't want to take the time to think it through and work out the consequences, I would not recommend going over six weapons. Up to that point, it doesn't look like you can actually lower your damage by adding weapons-- provided you are running with at least 100 power!-- but beyond six you start to collect enough rope to hang yourself with. On the other hand, If you often find yourself running with only 50 or 60 in weapons, you may want to limit yourself to only 3 or 4 weapons.

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 09:47 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:42 AM   #3
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Note: Due to the weapon changes that have occurred since I performed my tests the information below is now out of date! I have updated the chart links to those from my newest tests, but the text below is no longer accurate. See this post for more up to date information on weapon damage scaling.

Part II: Weapon Scaling

A) Weapon Efficiency Scaling- Updated March 5, 2010

I've completed the efficiency scaling for beam and turret weapons. DPS Scaling measures the increase in damage compared to one beam (which is why turrets start below 100). Efficiency is a measurement of how much each weapon's damage is reduced due to energy drain. Basically, if efficiency was 100%, each weapon would be doing full damage; if efficiency was 50%, each weapon would be doing half damage, etc.

Energy Weapon Damage Scaling
Energy Weapon Efficiency

Number of Beams- DPS Scaling (Beam Efficiency)
1 Beam- 100 (100%)
2 Beams- 177 (88.74%)
3 Beams- 259 (86.22%)
4 Beams- 313 (78.29%)
5 Beams- 356 (71.27%)
6 Beams- 373 (62.10%)
7 Beams- 380 (54.33%)

Beam Commentary
The interesting thing here is exactly how the drop off in efficiency occurs. Adding one weapon causes the output of both to drop by 11%, pretty close to the 10% that would be expected. Adding a second weapon only cause damage to drop off by 3%. This could be due to the increased staggering of weapons fire, or the way weapon energy slowly drops, allowing the first shots from each array to be made at closer to full power. Although some fluctuation might also be due to random variations in the test sample.

After the third beam, efficiency starts to drop off more quickly. As the next beams are added beam efficiency drops 8%, 7%, and 9%. All of those are pretty close to the theoretical fall off in efficiency that would be expected. So, clearly, the bonus damage provided by staggered fire and delayed energy drain stops having as much impact beyond 3 beams. Still, 6 beams fire at 61.25% efficiency, as opposed to the 50% efficiency one would expect if things worked perfectly by theory.

One thing that does stand out is that going form 5 beams to 6 results in a very small improvement. If you're thinking of whether to take that mine or torpedo launcher, that may weigh in your decision. You don't lose that much by dropping the one beam. Going from 6 to 7 beams is not really worth it at 100 energy, although it should look better if you boost your energy above 100.

Number of Turrets- DPS Scaling (Turret Efficiency)
1 Turret- 70 (100%)
2 Turrets- 128 (92.08%)
3 Turrets- 188 (90.02%)
4 Turrets- 237 (85.30%)
5 Turrets- 274 (78.74%)
6 Turrets- 300 (71.76%)
7 Turrets- 319 (65.44%)

Turret Commentary
Turrets, as has been suspected, have a lower drop off in damage, most likely due to greater percentage of the time they spend in cool down. As a rule of thumb, you can run with one extra turret for the same drop in efficiency as beams. However, because turrets have a lower base damage than beams, even with their greater efficiency they still do less damage compared to an equal number of beams. Of course, that is offset by the fact that turrets have a 360 degree arc of fire, and the damage of 6 turrets is higher than that of 3 beams.

Number of Dual Beams- DPS Scaling (Beam Efficiency)
1 Dual Beam- 130 (100%)
2 Dual Beams- 252 (96.57%)
3 Dual Beams- 349 (89.24%)
4 Dual Beams- 429 (82.23%)

Dual Beam Commentary
For reasons that are not entirely clear, dual beams are more efficient than single beams, and up to 2 weapons they are also more efficient than turrets. The mechanics of how dual beams fire are the same as single beams, so I suspect the difference must be due to their higher base damage. On the initial one or two shots, dual beams would do more damage, although one would still think that the percentage drop off would be the same. In any case, while dual beams seem somewhat undeserving of their "dual" name when just looking at their base damage, by the time you reach 3 beams, dual beams do, in fact, almost equal the damage output of six beams. If dual beams did any more base damage they would probably be extremely overpowered.

Part II B: Energy Regen Scaling

A) EPS Flow Regen Rate- Updated March 4, 2010
First let me warn you that "Engine Efficiency Training" does nothing to increase your energy regen rate. I don't know if Warp Core training helps either, but I sort of doubt it. The only thing that will increase your energy regen rate, that I know of, are EPS Flow Regulator consoles. The chart below shows how adding EPS flow consoles increases your energy regen.

EPS Flow Energy Regen Rate

EPS Flow Console Commentary
Adding EPS consoles dramatically increases your energy regen rate. Even adding a MK 1, which has an EPS flow value of 0.5, results in a 44% improvement over your base regen. After that the increase is not as dramatic, but if you are going to run with a large number of weapons, you're probably going to need one or two EPS flow consoles. Going with more than two is probably not worth it most circumstances.

Please note that the values for MK10 rare and MK10 very rare are estimated, because I have not actually seen an MK10 console of those rarities. If you have seen one, please let me know if the values are correct.

I still have to see exactly how many consoles are required to support a given number of weapons.

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 09:50 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:43 AM   #4
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Part III: Testing Methodology

I employed the following methods to perform my build tests below. If you want to recreate my testing results, this should allow you to do so. If you have any questions or concerns about how testing was performed, then this will also be of interest to you (please read it before posting any complaints). Otherwise, if you don't really care about the details, feel free to skip this section.

A) Equipment And Skills
In order to ensure that I got as many shots in per combat as possible (as well as to lower the expense of buying equipment), I used all MK I phaser weapons. The weapons I used were: Phaser Beam Array MK I, Phaser Beam Turret MK I, Dual Phaser Beam Bank MK I

My relevant skill levels were the following: +18 Starship Energy Weapons, +30 Starship Beam Weapons, +30 Starship Cannon Weapons, +1 Phaser Weapons.

The only consoles I had equipped were EPS Flow Regulators (an excessive amount just to make overly sure that insufficient regen wouldn't play a part), and a Graviton Generator (+15 tractor beam, which I didn't use). I had no tactical console equipped at all.

B) Test Scenario
To perform the tests I ran the Daise system patrol mission numerous times. I would fight the two Negh'Var battle cruisers, which are the first two ships encountered, and then abort the mission and wait at least 5 minutes so it reset. The reason I chose the Negh'Vars is because they were fairly slow, so it was easy to keep them close, and because they were both the same ship, they followed the same general AI mechanics. I used the Daise mission over a Deep Space Encounter because I could enter it solo and be sure that my combats wouldn't be interrupted either by other wandering ships, or by players.

For most of my tests I performed at least eight encounters, however due to the accuracy shown in the results (often being off by only single digits out of hundreds of DPS), in future tests I may only run two or four encounters to save time. Especially for more esoteric builds, I won't take the time to run more than four encounters.

C) Test Build Construction
When performing the tests, I would create an isolated build that only tested that specific weapons configuration, without any chance of more weapons being fired. For example, when testing the forward damage of 6 Beams, I put 3 beams in the front, and had no beams equipped in the back. That way, I had a 270 degree firing arc with 3 weapons and didn't have to worry about accidentally spoiling the results by broadsiding with 6 beams. Likewise with the 4 Beams, 2 Turrets build, I tested frontal damage with only 2 beams and 2 turrets equipped (rear damage would be identical in both cases).

D) Combat Tactics
In combat, I would move to within about 1.5 kilometers before starting the log and commencing with weapons fire. I would then move closer and try to keep within 0.5 km of the enemy or less. I would sometimes get as close as 0.25, and tried to never be more than 1 km away (with the exception of when combat first started). The reason I started slightly farther out was so that I didn't lose my facing on the enemy during the split second where I was distracted by starting the log. As of 2/19/10 I have tried to initiate further combat tests from within 1 KM as well to prevent even a slight loss of damage for the initial shots, however I don't think the impact of this should be large enough to invalidate the previous tests.

I did not use auto fire, and instead hit the "fire all beams" button approximately every half second. I didn't spam the button, because sometimes that seems to cause the firing sequence to "jam", but I hit it frequently enough to keep all weapons firing. I tried to maintain my facing and keep the weapons firing at all times, and when possible keep on the same shield facing. I don't believe sticking to the same shield facing really mattered as I included shield damage, but I wanted to follow a consistent attack pattern.

The one exception to this is with the broadside tests. Due to the nature of being broadside, I couldn't consistently keep as close as during the other tests. I still tried to stay as close as possible, but sometimes might have been as far as 2-3 km away. This was unfortunate, but I don't really see any way around it. I could possibly use a tractor beam, but even then I wouldn't be able to keep it active the entire time. As of 2/19/2010 I figured out a better way to do broadside tests that allows me to stay in close to the ship. It involved lining up next to it facing the same direction before initiating the combat log. As a result all broadside tests will now be below 1 KM distance as well.

E) Log Adjustment
Once I had recorded the logs, it was then necessary to edit out extra combat information. For example, since I was so close, I would often be hit by the enemy ship's warp core breach, which would prolong combat by another 5 seconds, drastically lowering the reported DPS. At the beginning of each combat, I removed everything before my first shot landed (which would consist of a few damage entries from the enemy ship, and my shield array activating). At the end of each combat, I would cut everything out after the final shot which was marked with the label "kill" (since I was fighting with only one ship, I knew that indicated the end of the combat).

The result is that combat begins with my first shot at 0 seconds, and ends with my last shot that killed the enemy ship. If you do record your own tests it's important to edit the logs in this way, because otherwise the start and end times of the combats are not identical and it results in anomalous results.

F) Data Parsing
I then used the following log parser: http://sourceforge.net/projects/stocombat/ to view the logs. On each combat entry, I right clicked and checked "Credit shields as damage". This is important because otherwise only the 10% hull damage would be reported, and I wanted to check weapon damage, not how effective I was in combat (if I didn't stay on the same shield consistently it would show a lower DPS due to more shield damage if this option was not checked).

I took the DPS results from each test and averaged them together to achieve my final results. Each data set consists of four to eight combats, each of which consists of dozens, if not hundreds of individual shots. As a result there should be enough data to reach a reliable average.

G) Conclusion
When all was said and done I was very happy with how the testing turned out. The results were surprisingly consistent, more so than I had initially expected. The only thing I was not completely satisfied with were the previously mentioned broadside tests, but even there the variation in DPS was within about 10% of the mean. With my updated testing method for broadside, I managed to eliminate the variation in results there. I will redo the 6 beam broadside and then we can be confident all numbers are equally accurate.

Last edited by Nagorak : 02-19-2010 at 11:03 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:44 AM   #5
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Note: Due to weapon changes since I performed my tests, they are no longer entirely accurate. Based on my more recent testing results, I believe these build tests should still be mostly accurate, at least for beams and dual beams, but they may be slightly off. Turrets seem to have been weakened significantly since I performed the build tests.

Part IV: Build Test Results

Alright, we're finally to the point that most of you are probably interested in. All the theory aside, how do different builds stack up in practice? Below I will post the various builds I have tested with DPS comparisons for forward, side and aft.

For simplicity, I have used the damage of three beams as a set point of 100. The damage each setup produced has been divided by the damage done by three beams. If the build did more damage than three turrets the number will be above 100, and if it did less the number will be below 100. These numbers are also directly comparable to percentages. For example, a number of 120 means the damage was 120% of the damage output by three beams.

Updated February 24, 2010
  • Added sub charts for different tactical goals.
  • Removed the text build listings. It's easier just to compare with the charts.

6 Weapon Load Outs
All Around Load Outs (decent damage from all facings)
Broadside Load Outs (high side damage)
Frontal Barrage Load Outs (high frontal damage)

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 09:55 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:45 AM   #6
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Part V: Build Observations And Commentary

I never did get around to adding commentary here. Oh well!

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 09:51 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:45 AM   #7
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Part VI: Conclusion And Future Testing Plans

For updated information, please see my newest guide in the Starfleet Academy forum: Weapon Power and Multiple Weapon Damage Scaling

Last edited by Nagorak : 06-13-2010 at 10:04 PM.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:59 AM   #8
Nagorak
Senior Member
 
Nagorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

Feel free to post any comments, suggestions or questions below. If you find something confusing, or feel that the order the information is provided would be better another way, then please let me know.

I have a little bit more test data to finalize and then I will work on writing parts V and VI.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:59 AM   #9
Pottsey
Career Officer
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default

Nagorak said "
6 Beams
Fore: 100
Side: 142
Rear: 100

6 Turrets
Fore: 116
Side: 116
Rear: 116"

One thing I would like to see is how does rapid fire factor in? Will 6 turrets with rapid fire out damage 6 beams? Beams only have overload to boost damage and it doestn seem very good.
Could you please work out if 6 turrets with rapid fire is worth it over 6 beams?

Also will 6 plasma turrets cause the plasma DOT to happen more then beams? how will this factor into overall DPS. If weapons can go over 125 power to keep the minium power higher could 3 weapon power modules be better then 2 and 1 ESP flow.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 02:05 AM   #10
VainEldritch
Senior Member
 
VainEldritch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Space Dock
Default

Awesome work, man. Awesome!

/salute

Many thanks.
__________________
"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals - and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"


W. Shakespeare, Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2.
 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply  


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Legal Terms  |   Contact Us  |   Star Trek Online Forums  |   Archive  |   Top