test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
How can ANYONE defend this?
dassemsto
Member Posts: 792 Arc User
Lately, I've spent some time checking the stats of the fleet ship. Some of the ships can be argued to be too strong or weak, and these can be discussed in another thread. This thread is made to the defence of those who have a very obvious disadvantage!
In order to highlight the differences, i will compare 2 and 2 ships to each other:
1. Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit vs. Fleet Quin Heavy Raptor
Hull and shields: Close enough not to make a difference
Weapons and boff layout: Identical
Turnrate: 17 v 15
Consoles: 5t-3e-2s v 4t-4e-2s (subrtact one eng console for cloak device on FTER)
Verdict:
- FTER has one more tac console
- FQHR has (effectively) 2 more eng consoles
- FTER has 2 (1) better turnrate
- FQHR has a undesireable pivot point
To get the FQHR to turn even close to how the FTER does, he'll need at least 2xRCS consoles. That means the advantage in turnrate for the FTER and or the eng consoles for the FQHR are equalling each other.
Result: Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit is 1 tac console better than the Fleet Qin Heavy Raptor. (Not a very big difference, but very obvious)
2. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Escort Retrofit
- Hull and shields, Big advantage to the FPE
- Boff slots: Identical, but more flexible on the FPE due to universal ensign
- Weapons, consoles and turnrate: Identical
This one is easy. The FPE has ALL the advantages.
3. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Scourge Destroyer Retrofit
- Hull and shields, advantage to the FPE
- Boff slots: Identical, but more flexible on the FPE due to universal ensign
- Weapons: Identical
- Consoles: FPE 1 more Eng, FSDR 1 more Sci
- Turnrate 16 v 17
FPE has more hull, more shields, flexible boff layout and better console slots. Slight turning advantage to the FSDR. FPE is easily the best.
4. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Aquarius Destroyer
- Hull and Shields: Massive advantage to FPE
- Weapon slots, FPE has one more aft
- Boff slots: Most viable setup, identical (some flexibility to the FAD for non-viable setups)
- Consoles and turnrate: Identical
Massive advantages to the FPE. No real advantage to FAD.
In order to highlight the differences, i will compare 2 and 2 ships to each other:
1. Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit vs. Fleet Quin Heavy Raptor
Hull and shields: Close enough not to make a difference
Weapons and boff layout: Identical
Turnrate: 17 v 15
Consoles: 5t-3e-2s v 4t-4e-2s (subrtact one eng console for cloak device on FTER)
Verdict:
- FTER has one more tac console
- FQHR has (effectively) 2 more eng consoles
- FTER has 2 (1) better turnrate
- FQHR has a undesireable pivot point
To get the FQHR to turn even close to how the FTER does, he'll need at least 2xRCS consoles. That means the advantage in turnrate for the FTER and or the eng consoles for the FQHR are equalling each other.
Result: Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit is 1 tac console better than the Fleet Qin Heavy Raptor. (Not a very big difference, but very obvious)
2. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Escort Retrofit
- Hull and shields, Big advantage to the FPE
- Boff slots: Identical, but more flexible on the FPE due to universal ensign
- Weapons, consoles and turnrate: Identical
This one is easy. The FPE has ALL the advantages.
3. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Scourge Destroyer Retrofit
- Hull and shields, advantage to the FPE
- Boff slots: Identical, but more flexible on the FPE due to universal ensign
- Weapons: Identical
- Consoles: FPE 1 more Eng, FSDR 1 more Sci
- Turnrate 16 v 17
FPE has more hull, more shields, flexible boff layout and better console slots. Slight turning advantage to the FSDR. FPE is easily the best.
4. Fleet Patrol Escort vs Fleet Aquarius Destroyer
- Hull and Shields: Massive advantage to FPE
- Weapon slots, FPE has one more aft
- Boff slots: Most viable setup, identical (some flexibility to the FAD for non-viable setups)
- Consoles and turnrate: Identical
Massive advantages to the FPE. No real advantage to FAD.
Post edited by dassemsto on
0
Comments
ooh I got one!
Since only 18% of the STO population play as Klingons their ships only deserve to be 18% as effective as the Fed ships. They made them 18% less effective which is a whole 64% added difference on the effectiveness they deserve, so CrypticWorld is actually being extremely generous!
The only other defenses I can think up is "LOLKlingons" and "LOLPvP".
What he said.
-The Milkshake Song: Vulcan Edition
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Boff: Captain, enemy ship inco... *ship decloaks because Boff spoke*
Lol, but even two of the fed escorts are but pale copies of the Fleet Patrol Escort! Were they designed by self-hating feds?
LOL, brainwashed dev drone- look into my eyes... SLAP !
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
NNyuck NNyuck NNyuck.
R.I.P
these are all fleet ships , surely they should all share a common baseline ... right ?
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
When it comes to the fleetships in general, the ships do not require you to level a character. Even though you are leveling a fleetbase, the character you are using does not need to progress. If I were in charge of the system, I would make all the fleetships available in tier one and two. Once players are able to obtain a ship, they can use it to bring the fleetbases to tier five.
::: Quick Question ::: - Upon getting your tier five fleetship, what are you going to do with it? Since tier five represents the game's end, what are you going to do with an endgame ship? Game over.
Nothing says they can't increase the HP/shields to match other T5 ships. Actually, two of the Fed Fleet escorts are sub-par to the regular patrol escort even... Tier 3 doesn't matter. It lasts a few day. 99% of those who bought lower tier ships did it to use the special consoles on higher tier ships.
"tier 5 does not matter, because when you reach that level you should stop playing"? I've been playing at top tier for more than 900 days... and FYI, T5 is where all the PvP happens.
No no, you see some ships are older and therefore worse. Not because of balance or fun or letting everyone fly their preferred ship, but because that's how vehicles work.
It's like this bad car metaphor I'm making up right now. All of these posts need a bad car metaphor. The Toyota Camry was first produced in 1982, and how many people drive Camrys now? NONE, because every Toyota Camry is exactly like the first one, forever, and nothing ever changes or evolves. And who would want to drive an old car, anyway?
^^^ Get ready for a lot of these posts if you continue this line of questioning. I should know, I've had people take umbrage at my Excelsior. :P
...and it'll STILL outrun your 2012 Camry.
:P
But to the topic: Newer doesn't mean better, and as usual the KDF were given second level ships AND a steeper pricetag for them.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
hmm fleet adavnce armor
Funny you should mention the excelsior... that museum ship outclasses most new Cruisers, including fleet cruisers. And the old Galaxy class, even matches the newer Fleet cruiser HP for HP. Also the Defiant, holds it's own against any of the newer escorts.
I don't understand you old car methaphor.... There were newer versions of Camrys released in -87, -92, -97, and -02. Each one an improvement upon the older versions, and each one on par with competition at the time of launch. Each upgrade heavier, more powerful, and with more features and options. So for a new version of an old ship, it should be able to keep up with competiotion, or there would be no point of making it?
Except for the Fleet Battlecruisers which outclass every Fleet Fed Cruiser.
Not just the cruisers. The Fleet Tor'Kaht Battle Cruiser Retrofit owns the patrol escort. They can have a nearly identical boff layout(one tac power for one eng power) and an identical console layout. But the Tor'Kaht has an exta weapon slot, more hull, more shields, more crew, an integrated cloak, and with two RCS consoles providing +35% each gives it a turn rate of 17. You lose survivability but the extra hull and shields compensate.
I love this ship. It fights like an escort and survives like a cruiser. It embodies the entire klingon faction and has become my favorite ship to fight in.
Defiant-F vs Qin-F: sounds like you copied what I told you in that other thread.
Good, good.
Overall notes:
- it is quite puzzling that you consider a 10% Hull advantage "close enough to be negligible" but a ~8.77% Hull advantage worth mention (Hermes-F vs Scourge-F).
- It is just as puzzling that you seem to agree with my assessment that the Qin has "effectively 2 more Eng Consoles" but later go on to call a Eng Console better than a Sci Console... the former assessment requires implicit admition that Sci Consoles>Eng Consoles.
Now, back to specific examples:
1. Why 2 RCS Consoles? A single one suffices to bring the Qin's turnrate to 19/20 (I think it's the former, but the calculation has been disputed and I've never bothered to test for myself).
I think I did quantify things a bit in the other thread.
Suffices to say: the Qin is more defensive, the Defiant more offensive. They're not perfectly balanced (I'd pick the Defiant, personally), but once the pivot point issue is finally fixed, they're close enough.
The pivot point issue does need to be corrected, though. On all Qin models.
2. That I can defend: the Saber-F/Olympic-F/Nova-F/K'tinga-F/... were made for RPers; not min-maxers.
Their role is to provide workable Ships for those who like those designs for whatever reasons without rivalling actual T5 Ships.
FED-side, I approve of keeping them inferior to actual T5s; I wouldn't want to see Sabers, Olympics and Cheyennes replace Prometheuses, Lunas and Sovereigns and the FED side has enough variety to allow for those "RP Ships".
KDF-side, I don't approve. The KDF has few enough Ships that those (especially the Somraw-F) should be brought to par with former other Fleet T5s.
3. Heh, this is a lot closer than you present it.
The Scourge has less Hull (as mentionned, the difference is lower than the Qin vs Defiant, though) and cannot opt to use an Eng Ensign but more Turn rate (again, less than previous example) and a better Console setup.
In the end, they're pretty comparable (and both inferior to the Prometheus-F and Akira-F).
4. That I can't defend.
The Aquarius is terrible on all levels, and I cannot understand why.
It has the Hull, Shields and Weapons of a BoP but no Cloak, only 15 Turn Rate and only low Universal BOFFs and on top of that they gave it a Cruiser's Impulse Mod... I really don't get this Ship.
What I'd do to rebalance/repurpose Fleet Escort Ships:
1) Fix the Qin's pivot point.
This would suffice to give it a unique niche and relatively balance it with the other Escorts.
You can't do much apart from that: give it a better Ensign and it obsoletes the Hermes (more Hull, same Consoles, Cloak); give it a 5th Tac Console instead of the 3rd Eng and it obsoletes the Defiant; whereas as-is (with pivot fixed), it sits between them on the offense vs defense scale.
2) Exchange the Console setup of the Akira-F and the Hermes-F.
Firstly because it makes sense: going from regular to Fleet, the Hermes-F is supposed to cover the design space formerly occupied by the Hermes and that formerly occupied by the Prometheus (the Prometheus-F occupying that of the Prometheus-R/MVAE); so adding a Sci Console makes more sense than Eng.
On the other hand, the Akira-F just reaffirmed the Eng slant of the Akira-X/Armitage, so adding an Eng Console makes more sense than Sci.
Secondly as a balancing measure: the Akira-F and Prometheus-F are slightly ahead of the other Fleet Escorts (both factions), overall.
3) As a result of 2); buff the Scourge-F's Hull by 5% (rounded up) to 33k and its Shield mod to .99.
As a result, it would have the same Hull/Turn Rate as the Defiant-F (and the same Shield as all Fleet T5 Escorts), no 5th Tac Console but a better Ensign.
4) Buff the Somraw-F's Shield mod to .83.
Why no higher? This thing has a lot of Hull (second only to the Akira-F among Escorts), baseline turn rate (as far as Fleet Escorts go, 15=low; 16=baseline; 17=high), an useful Ensign, a pretty good Console setup and a native Cloak; Shield mod is the only thing it's bad at; if it was any higher the Qin-F, Scourge-F and Hermes-F would all be obsolete (even with the adjustments 1 to 3).
5) Lower the Prometheus-F's Turn Rate to 15.
It can afford it and that'd be more consistent with the base version.
With all those changes, I think the Escorts would be decently balanced (Akira-F and Prometheus-F still edging ahead, JHAS still quite dominant) and the KDF side would have more serious Fleet Escort options.
Edit: I forgot change 6:
6) Either scrap or completely re-do the Aquarius' stats:
A) Survivability:
Hull: 26400 -> 28000
Shields: .72 -> .9
Crew: 50 -> 30 (let's be honest, you'd fit less people in that thing than in the Defiant)
Eng Consoles: 4 -> 4
Sci Consoles: 2 -> 2
Keep it frail, but not so much.
Impulse mod: .15 -> .2
Turn rate: 15 -> 24
There is abolutely no reason why this thing doesn't have Escort/BoP-level Impulse mod and seriously, it should turn well.
C) pewpewbility:
Front Weapons: 4 -> 4
Aft Weapons: 2 -> 2
Tac Consoles: 4 -> 4
Same is same.
D) BOFFlayoutity:
C: Tac
LC: Uni
Lt: Uni
Lt: Uni
Ens: Uni
Its weak Hull/Shield and Weapons Layout really set it up to be the FED-BoP, so might as well make it fit the bill.
It's a slightly different stance on the BoP: no Cloak of any kind and a non-Universal Commander BOFF but slightly better soft stats and an Ensign; that should suffice to protect KDF uniqueness.
R.I.P
Which makes sense for a human car possibly but not neccassarily a Klingon vessel because as a race they are known building for long duty and studiness. Its one of the reasons they have little change in thier vessels over time. They update but rarely just build a new vessel for kicks.
So that Neghvar may look old but its up to date but its battle worthy.
We KDF just want to make sure this is reflected ingame.
R.I.P
Precisely. It's why they're still flying the B'rel model, which is 100-150 years old. The ship itself works fine, they just upgrade the technology and armor plating, etc. They also build new ones on the same model that reflect advances in material technology (stronger metals, etc). There's no need to change the base model of the ship unless it's shown to have a critical flaw of some sort (like, say, hitting it in a particular way will guarantee a warp core overload or something). They know exactly what the ships are capable of in battle. The KDF also generally make do with 'simpler' and possibly more reliable technology, at least on the smaller ships, rather than loading up on leading-edge technologies that probably take more resources and energy to maintain and build. They reserve that for the flagships and other high-powered battleships (such as the Chancellor-class vessels mentioned in a few Klingon-centric novelizations).
One to bring the turnrate up to Defiant level, one more to outweigh the poor pivot point.
Why should they? Those are obsolete designs to begin with.
Because it's a game and there should be equal footing for playes on both sides.
The issue was about T4 vs T5, or even worse, T2 vs T5. Whyever should the ol' TRIBBLE come to match the newer designs?
This is true and so wrong.
I thought that all fleet level vessels where iether VA or LG, and thus on the same level and not at T2, T3 or what ever.
At least the Vessels can only be acquired and used at VA or LG, so the Fleet Qin and the Fleet Defiant are considered on same level of technology as far as construction and comparison.
R.I.P
The Raptor pivot point is far back on the ship, almost trailing it - its the same point as on the Battlecruisers. The result is, despite the turn rate it actually takes notably longer to rotate the nose in line with a target, and as a result, even if these two ships had the same rate of turn, the central-pivot of the Tactical Escorts makes their turn rate far, far more effective in keeping a target in the sweet spot.
Secondly, the FTER has no cloak, unless that console is brought in, while the FQHR has a built-in cloak. This is likely only accounable for the console layout. You have mentioned this and accounted for it, but I bring it up specifically as support for my argument for removing the cloak from ALL KDF ships and granting them additional consoles plus access to a Cloaking Universal Console (Universal version for BoPs only).
Lastly, some of the KDF Fleet Battlecruisers have been granted a universal slot - the FQHR need this like no other... it is simply not populated with enough variants to appeal to more than one playstyle.
All in all, there is a list of things the Raptor class needs to bring it's trade offs in balance: Cloak console (and one additional Tac console slot), higher hull (the raptor we see on screen supports it, and the pivot point needs a balance point), 1 universal station, and perhaps a look at the weapon slot organization. (5-2 would be much more in keeping with the Raptor-class color text from the ship vendor)
ALL HOLDINGS FINISHED! - Starbase 5-5-5-5 || Embassy 3-3-3 || Mine 3-3-3 || Spire 3-3-3
A laid back KDF fleet welcoming independent, casual, & part-time players and groups. Roms & alts welcome.
Send in-game mail to Wampaq@Jnoh, visit our recruitment thread and FB page for more info.
If a ship can't be redesigned to match current demands, it's pointless to do so. Therefore, launching VA/LG level Fleet ships with sub-par stats is also pointless. If they ARE going to introduce new ships, and charge us our first born for them, at least they should be competitive.
Yup, having the pivot pont further back effectively decreases the Cannon arc of fire.