Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 145
I argue that the Aquarius Destroyer and Fleet Aquarius Destroyer are in need of improved stats compared to their current forms.

Introduction:

The Fleet Aquarius Destroyer and Aquarius Destroyer are ships available to fleets that have a Tier IV or greater Shipyard. The Fleet Aquarius Destroyer costs 20,000 Fleet Credits and 4 Fleet Ship Modules, and the Aquarius Destroyer costs 200,000 Fleet Credits. The argument exists that this vessel, within the game canon, is intended to be deployed from an Odyssey-class vessel and serve as a support craft; thus, its stats are not as high as compared to a "proper" escort. I argue against that premise for one based upon game mechanics involved with how they are obtained; these vessels are underpowered compared to their relative acquisition costs and require improvements to make them into worthwhile vessels instead of vanity trophies. To support my argument that these two vessels are in need of modification to improve their stats, I will first provide those of three other vessels for comparison: the Fleet Patrol Escort, the Fleet Escort Retrofit, and the Tactical Escort Refit. The Fleet Patrol Escort and the Fleet Escort Retrofit are both ships available for 20,000 Fleet Credits and 4 Fleet Ship Modules, and are available at Tier I and II Shipyards, respectively. The Tactical Escort Refit is a Captain-level Escort (compare to the AD/FAD being Vice Admiral ships) available for 1,500 Zen. The stats of these vessels, as of the time this article was written, are as follows (skip to Argument if you already know these stats):

Data:

Fleet Aquarius Destroyer
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship - Tier IV Shipyards)
Hull: 26,400
Shield Modifier: 0.94
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Ensign Universal (1 skill)

Aquarius Destroyer
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship - Tier IV Shipyards)
Hull: 24,000
Shield Modifier: 0.85
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Ensign Universal (1 skill)

Fleet Patrol Escort
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship - Tier I Shipyards)
Hull: 34,100
Shield Modifier: 0.99
Weapons: 4 Fore, 3 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 16
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Science (2 skills), Ensign Universal (1 skill)

Fleet Escort Retrofit
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship - Tier II Shipyards)
Hull: 30,360
Shield Modifier: 0.99
Weapons: 4 Fore, 3 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Science (2 skills), Ensign Engineering (1 skill)

Tactical Escort Refit
Class: Escort (Captain-rank)
Hull: 25,000
Shield Modifier: 0.9
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 3 Engineering, 2 Science, 3 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.20
Inertia rating: 70
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Tactical (2 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Science (2 skills), Ensign Engineering (1 skill)

Argument:

Comparing the stats of the Tactical Escort Refit to the normal and Fleet Aquarius Destroyer, we can see that the Captain-level vessel is equal in most stats, other than having one less Tactical console than both (and one less Engineering than the Fleet Aquarius Destroyer), a Lieutenant Tactical on the TER instead of the AD/FAD's Lieutenant Commander, Engineering and Science bridge officers instead of the Universal AD/FAD bridge officers, and hull stats. In fact, the Tactical Escort Refit has a greater hull and shield modifier (Hull: 25,000, Shield Modifier: 0.9) than the Aquarius Destroyer (Hull: 24,000, Shield Modifier: 0.85). The cost of the Captain-level escort is only 1500 Zen, rather than the 2000 Zen of the Fleet Aquarius Destroyer (for four Fleet Ship Modules). These minor weaknesses compared to a far, far greater investments required for investment in this Tier IV Shipyard vessel offer the argument of simply using the Tactical Escort Refit instead of an Aquarius Destroyer.

The normal and Fleet Aquarius Destroyers received a greater shield modifier on February 14, 2013. They were previously worse than they are now, showing that Cryptic is willing to rebalance ships in favor of making them more worthwhile to use. I ask for more consideration to be given to the Aquarius Destroyer.

As it currently exists, the Aquarius is very similar to a Bird-of-Prey. What it lacks is a full complement of Universal bridge officers and battle cloak. The Bird-of-Prey has access to higher-level bridge officer skills than the Aquarius can fit, as well as a higher Turn Rate (21). What the Aquarius gains compared to a Bird-of-Prey is... a net one more Ensign bridge officer. I ask not that all of these suggestions be applied; the following are simply a list of suggestions as to how the Aquarius Destroyer (more specifically, its fleet counterpart) could be improved:

Include a Battle Cloak: This might rub many people the wrong way, but if nothing else were to be improved, a Battle Cloak would be justifiable on this craft. Its hull is terribly low compared to other escorts, in the range that Birds-of-Prey are on the KDF vessels. While the Federation typically does not use cloaked vessels, the Khitomer Accords are a thing of the past in game canon. A Battle Cloak is not unthinkable as an addition to this vessel, given the stats currently attributed to it.

"Bird-of-Prey"-Universal Bridge Officer Layout and/or Turn Rate: If the ships are to remain Birds-of-Prey in hull and shield strength, I can't imagine why they can't have a similar bridge officer layout and maneuverability.

Third Aft Weapon Slot: If the Battle Cloak is not added to this vessel, there is no reason for it not to have a third aft weapon slot. Every other Fleet Escort has no fewer than three aft weapon slots.

Increased Hull/Shield Modifier: These values, as previously listed, are horrifyingly low compared to other Fleet Escorts. An increase to those on-par with the Fleet Escort Retrofit would be recommended, perhaps even slightly lower, but something more would need to be added to make the Fleet Aquarius Destroyer less inferior to the Fleet Escort Retrofit in all ways.

Decreased Fleet Credit/Ship Module Costs: If a ship inferior to the other escorts is to be sold, it should be priced comparatively lower. No one wants to pay for a sports car and receive a jalopy.

Function As Small Craft: The Aquarius is capable of being deployed as a support craft from the Odyssey. I believe that the Aquarius could thus be flagged as a shuttle, and therefore be a ?super-shuttle? for doing missions such as Operation Gamma and The Vault

Conclusion:

As I conclude, I wish to thank Jamjamz and the rest of the ship modeling and texturing team for designing a beautiful destroyer craft. Part of the reason why I advanced my shipyards first, before other fleet assets, was to fly an Aquarius, and my only visual disappointment is how the Type 6, my favorite non-shield hull texture, cannot be applied it to this ship. Now, what I hope for is that each Aquarius can be made into a ship that is worth flying for more than just its looks, in a way that justifies the costs necessary to unlock and purchase them.

July 12, 2012 - January 24, 2013
It's been a long road, getting from there to here~

Last edited by epsilonia; 03-31-2013 at 04:42 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,722
# 2
03-31-2013, 04:56 PM
nope aquarius is fine, bop is fine, the rest are overpowered to lulzy levels.

fleet b'rel http://www.stowiki.org/B%27rel_Fleet...-Prey_Retrofit
Class: Escort (Fleet Ship, Tier V Shipyards)
Hull: 24,750
Shield Modifier: 0.88
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 3 Science, 3 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.20
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander universal (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander universal (3 skills), Lieutenant universal (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills)


versus as you pointed out


Fleet Aquarius Destroyer
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship ? Tier IV Shipyards)
Hull: 26,400
Shield Modifier: 0.94
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Ensign Universal (1 skill)



b'rel = what a small ship should be, hit & run glass cannon with high focussed dps and agility to offset lack of health

Fleet Patrol Escort = size of a damn cruiser, moves like a fighter, health of a cruiser hits like a juggernaught

Fleet Escort Retrofit = size of a bop, moves like a fighter health of a cruiser , also hits hile a juggernaught.


what is making these ships seem poor is that their niche as small craft is obsoleted by cruiser size mvam's & raptors having the same agility as such small ships
and other small fedscorts having the durability of cruisers when they shouldnt do.

what your suggestion will do is further obsolete cruisers & large ships while simultaniously making the escort ships in game more of a big bland mess than they are now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redz4tw View Post
can you say attack pattern angry forumers 3?

Last edited by skollulfr; 03-31-2013 at 05:01 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 145
# 3
03-31-2013, 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skollulfr View Post
nope aquarius is fine, bop is fine, the rest are overpowered to lulzy levels.

b'rel = what a small ship should be, hit & run glass cannon with high focussed dps and agility to offset lack of health

Fleet Patrol Escort = size of a damn cruiser, moves like a fighter, health of a cruiser hits like a juggernaught

Fleet Escort Retrofit = size of a bop, moves like a fighter health of a cruiser , also hits hile a juggernaught.


what is making these ships seem poor is that their niche as small craft is obsoleted by cruiser size mvam's & raptors having the same agility as such small ships
and other small fedscorts having the durability of cruisers when they shouldnt do.

what your suggestion will do is further obsolete cruisers & large ships while simultaniously making the escort ships in game more of a big bland mess than they are now.
You seem to have left off the Battle Cloak from the Fleet B'rel in your description. How would you feel about the Fleet B'rel if it had no Battle Cloak and more locked bridge officer slots? Also, your stats, as listed, are incorrect. They are as follows:

Class: Raider (Fleet Ship, Tier V Shipyards) [effectively Escort]
Hull: 24,750
Shield Modifier: 0.88
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 30
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 3 Science, 3 Tactical
Turn Rate: 23
Impulse Modifier: 0.20
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Universal (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Universal (3 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills)
Abilities: Battle Cloak

And as long as we are posting Bird-of-Prey stats, let's include what the KDF gets in place of the Aquarius, the Fleet Hoh'Sus.

Class: Raider (Fleet Ship, Tier IV Shipyards) [effectively Escort]
Hull: 24,750
Shield Modifier: 0.88
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 70
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 3 Engineering, 3 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 21
Impulse Modifier: 0.20
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Universal (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Universal (3 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills)
Abilities: Battle Cloak

July 12, 2012 - January 24, 2013
It's been a long road, getting from there to here~

Last edited by epsilonia; 03-31-2013 at 05:28 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 341
# 4
03-31-2013, 05:16 PM
I agree with @skollulfr in this one .

For OP i have met Aquarius Destroyer in combat actually in C&H and it is a nasty little ship that strange enough can hit very hard if it is built properly and it takes little damage due to high turn rate.I am sorry i didn't logged that combat but at the next encounter I will and post some data too.
Originally Posted by zipagat :
"There already is a Borg faction, its called the Federation. They assimilate everyone else's technology and remove any biological or technical distinctiveness and add it to their own."
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,722
# 5
03-31-2013, 05:54 PM
whoopsy for not attentively copying all the stats?
and, not a great deal of difference between either of those two ships.
gg on proving my point.

any issue i have with the cloak is how they are implemented, and they arent that great in the least. bout all they grant you is a bit of advantage for timing your alpha and a tractor beam or shockwave disables it. so its far from a win button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redz4tw View Post
can you say attack pattern angry forumers 3?
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 270
# 6
03-31-2013, 10:59 PM
To be honest I'd be entertained with keeping the Aquarius as it is but making it count as a small craft. Make it a super-shuttle and suddenly its actually justifiable wasting the equivalent of $20 on something that is barely on par with a tier 4 ship.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,394
# 7
03-31-2013, 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skollulfr View Post
whoopsy for not attentively copying all the stats?
and, not a great deal of difference between either of those two ships.
gg on proving my point.

any issue i have with the cloak is how they are implemented, and they arent that great in the least. bout all they grant you is a bit of advantage for timing your alpha and a tractor beam or shockwave disables it. so its far from a win button.
The battle cloak on a KDF bop gives you a very big advantage, given that the classic Bop relies almost totally on timing your alpha, as you put it. Also, getting disabled hardly matters once the disable wears off and you can recloak. The Aquarius does not have that option.

In essence, the things you failed to copy are the biggest differences between a BoP and the Aquarius: turnrate, universal boff slots, and battle cloak. Without these, a BoP would be nothing but an inferior, paper-hulled escort, which the Aquarius is.

The Aquarius also lacks the flexibility of the Bop. While a Bop and easily be configured to be an alpha striker, a sci or a healer, you cannot do that with the Aquarius.

With these differences, I believe that the Aquarius would be better off nerfed somewhat then made a small craft, or just given the universal boff slots to make for a more interesting playstyle.

And yes, the Aquarius can hit fairly hard. However, the problem is that it cannot hit as hard as a similarly outfitted fleet escort of a different type, which is why we are looking for a buff, considering it costs the same. Oh, and its turnrate is exactly the same as the Defiant Retrofit, which hits a lot harder for the same price, and can fit a standard cloak.
Take it easy!

Ishmael@scurry5: A Nibbling Sci
"Squeak?"

Last edited by scurry5; 03-31-2013 at 11:25 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 233
# 8
04-01-2013, 09:59 AM
then dont fly it, it belongs docked on the back of a starship used as cannon fodder when your work bees and saucer are on CD
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 9
04-01-2013, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilonia View Post
I argue that the Aquarius Destroyer and Fleet Aquarius Destroyer are in need of improved stats compared to their current forms..
Arent you kinda late?

We all joke about the LOLaquarious since the ship is a joke, its actually been modified once when its turn rate 15 was changed to turn rate 17, even when they updated the shield modifiers of several Fleet ships they left it alone.

The ship have been a joke for a long time, its kinda of a running gag by now.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 10
04-01-2013, 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skollulfr View Post
nope aquarius is fine, bop is fine, the rest are overpowered to lulzy levels.

fleet b'rel http://www.stowiki.org/B%27rel_Fleet...-Prey_Retrofit
Class: Escort (Fleet Ship, Tier V Shipyards)
Hull: 24,750
Shield Modifier: 0.88
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 3 Science, 3 Tactical
TURN RATE: 23
Impulse Modifier: 0.20
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander universal (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander universal (3 skills), Lieutenant universal (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills)

BATTLE CLOAK
THE SINGLE BEST BOFF LAYOUT IN THE ENTIRE GAME


versus as you pointed out


Fleet Aquarius Destroyer
Class: Escort (Vice Admiral-rank, Fleet Ship ? Tier IV Shipyards)
Hull: 26,400
Shield Modifier: 0.94
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft
Crew: 50
Device Slots: 2
Consoles: 4 Engineering, 2 Science, 4 Tactical
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Inertia rating: 80
Bonus Power: +15 weapons power
Bridge Officers: Commander Tactical (4 skills), Lieutenant Commander Tactical (3 skills), Lieutenant Engineering (2 skills), Lieutenant Universal (2 skills), Ensign Universal (1 skill)



b'rel = what a small ship should be, hit & run glass cannon with high focussed dps and agility to offset lack of health


Aquarius = small ship, with no hit & run ability.

No cloak.

No Battle cloak.

No 23 base turn rate.


Same Weapon load as Fleet B'rel.

Primarily Locked BOFF layout.


No ridiculously good CMD, Ltc x2, Lt boff layout.

Absolutely nothing to offset lower health.



There is no way any rational player capable of cognizant thought can look at the above specs of these two ships and even pretend they are remotely balanced vs. each other.


Anyone who says so, is just being a shill for their faction of choice and not even attempting to be objective.


It's one thing to love your faction, and quite another to say things that are very clearly absurd.

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 11:12 AM.