Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 474
# 41
05-03-2013, 10:32 AM
The fleet defiant is 0.99 shield mod.... but the T'varo needs to be adjusted for sure.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 677
# 42
05-03-2013, 11:51 AM
Originally Posted by cerealplayer View Post
************************************************** ****************

I'm not in the closed beta, and to be honest, I haven't played STO in a while. So I'll be the first to accept that I can be totally off base on this (and if I am, feel free to correct me / show me where I'm wrong / what I'm missing). That said, just from looking at the stats of the Romulan ships, it seems to me that there are serious balance issues. I'll restrict my comments to the first three top-tier ships, since they are most raiders / escorts which is what I know and fly (this is not to say there may not be issues with the larger cruiser type ships, I just don't know enough to comments).

I'm basing my comments on ship-to-ship comparison between the Romulan ships and either Klingon or Fed ships. Now, of course I understand that ships ought to be unique and not direct copy pastes. However, it seems to me that in a direct comparison there ought to be advantages *AND* disadvantages to each ship. If one ship is better in every single way than another (same tier) ship, this tells me there's an imbalance.

I also realize that Romulan ships have unique singularity powers. However, *all* top tier ships have access to these, and these are supposed to be balanced by the reduced power levels (and probably other "nerfs" that are applied across the board to *all* Romulan ships).

OK, onwards!

************************************************** ****************

Fleet T'Varo

Of all the ships of other factions, this ship is most like the Fleet B'rel retrofit. It seems to cater to the same roles. Lets compare them though:


Weapons: 4 front, 2 back
Consoles: 3 Tactical, 4 Engineering, 3 Science
Turn rate: 23
Hull: 24750
Shield modifier 0.88
All universal stations.


Weapons: 4 front, 3 back
Consoles Engineering 3, Tactical: 5, Science: 2
Turn rate: 18
Hull: 33K
Shield Modifier: .99 shield
Bridge Officer Stations:
Commander Tactical Station, Lt. Commander Tactical Station, Ensign Tactical Station, Lieutenant Engineering Station and Lieutenant Science Station

It's pretty clear, immediately, that both ships are designed for huge spike damage, either from a decloack alpha strike with energy weapons, or using the enhanced battle cloak with non-energy weapons. It's also clear that the T'Varo is a whole order of magnitude better at it. It has one extra rear weapon, and not one but *two* extra tact consoles. What does it give up for this? Turn rate, which is till pretty good, and universal stations. It's stations are still pretty good, though, for a standard DPS / Alpha strike build; giving up just a possible LTC Sci, that's used in some B'Rel builds I've seen. Oh, and lest we forget, the T'varo is also a lot more durable than the B'rel!

I just can't see why a Klingon B'rel player wouldn't be better suited re-rolling KDF-ulan and flying a T'varo instead.
A well timed PSW3? B'rel is still superb in alphas because of the utilization they use. You dont really need Raw damage up until a certain point really...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,147
# 43
05-03-2013, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by suaveks View Post
See the problem yet?.
Like I said, i have no problem with it being an escort/BoP hybrid and considering the way the game has come thusfar it seems quite in line with where it needs to be really, if anything the other endgame ships (RA ships) need a tweak.

Considering how I've seen well built cruisers go poof in 3 seconds flat when faced with a Bop I don't take much issue with the stats on this.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 679
# 44
05-03-2013, 02:55 PM
As others have said, and I'll re-say, I keep seeing a bunch of math on paper, that are missing quite a few variables, some of which we simply don't know about right now. So having to say it's OP because you're incomplete math tells you so, well that's just proving a lot of peoples points that anyone will cry "OP" without knowing what they're talking about.

I'm going to throw this out again as the big changer, what's the differences between their energy levels, and how much do you have to give up to get the T'Varo to the same energy level as one of it's counterparts?

When the energy level was a base 40, many of the same posters I see now were screaming how unfair that was, because how it was going to effect their DPS and survivability.

Yet in all the math I've seen in this post, crying that the T'Varo is OP, not a single one has taken that variable into account.

The next variable is, at end game, what are the differences between Singularity Cores and Warp Cores? What are the glaring omissions (such as I haven't seen a Singularity Core that buffs weapon power yet, but I may have missed it). How will a that difference efect the game play?

Traits is another that'll be problematic. What special traits do the KDF races get, that the Romulans, remans, and Aliengens don't?

There are probably other variables that I'm not thinking about, but to cry that a ship is OP, that I haven't seen anyone fly in true PvP yet, or seen Math that's even remotely accurate, tells me nothing.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,649
# 45
05-03-2013, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by cerealplayer View Post
That said, I think your calculations are a bit over-optimistic, in that you seem to be taking into account buffs that aren't always on.
The percentage is unlikely to change after you reach the Weapon Power step.

Which brings us to the following...

Originally Posted by cerealplayer View Post
I just want to make sure we don't fall for this "it's an insignificant gain" claptrap.
...this depends, in a sense - on what you've got before you reach that Weapon Power step.

It's a diminishing gain.

Somebody with 0 Weapons, 0 Energy Weapons, using a Common Mk X DHC will see a larger gain than somebody that's got 9 Weapons, 9 Energy Weapons, using a Very Rare Mk XII DHC.

The better your skills and the better your weapons, the smaller the gain you get from adding each additional Tac Console.

0 Weapons, 0 Energy Weapons, Common Mk X DHC, @125 Weapon Power
Base DHC: 174
+ 0 Weapons Training: (174) + (174 * (0 * 0.5)) = 174
+ 0 Energy Weapons: (174) + (174 * (0 * 0.5)) = 174
+ Common: (174) + (174 * (0 * 0.025)) = 174
+ Mk X: (174) + (174 * 1) = 348
(A) + 4x (+30%) Consoles: (348) + (4 * (174 * 0.30)) = 556.8
(B) + 5x (+30%) Consoles: (348) + (5 * (174 * 0.30)) = 609
(A) @ 125 Wep Pwr: (556.8) * (1 + ((125-50) * 0.02))) = 1392
(B) @ 125 Wep Pwr: (609) * (1 + ((125-50) * 0.02))) = 1522.5

B vs. A...+9.375%

9 Weapons, 9 Energy Weapons, Very Rare Mk XII DHC, @125 Weapon Power
Base DHC: 174
+ 9 Weapon Training: (174) + (174 * (0.999 * 0.5)) = 260.913
+ 9 Energy Weapons: (260.913) + (174 * (0.999 * 0.5)) = 347.826
+ Very Rare: (347.826) + (174 * (3 * 0.025)) = 360.876
+ Mk XII: (360.876) + (174 * 1.2) = 569.676
(A) + 4x (+30%) Consoles: (569.676) + (4 * (174 * 0.30)) = 778.476
(B) + 5x (+30%) Consoles: (569.676) + (5 * (174 * 0.30)) = 830.676
(A) @ 125 Wep Pwr: (778.476) * (1 + ((125-50) * 0.02))) = 1946.19
(B) @ 125 Wep Pwr: (830.676) * (1 + ((125-50) * 0.02))) = 2076.69

B vs. A...+6.7%

And like I said in the first part there, the buffs really won't change that percentage. Using the buff amounts from one of my guys...

Let's look at the 0 Weapons guy, eh?

(A) + APA3 (+47.1%): (1392) + (1392 * 0.471) = 2047.632
(B) + APA3 (+47.1%): (1522.5) + (1522.5 * 0.471) = 2239.5975

B vs. A...+9.375%

(A) + GDF3 (+24.9%): (2047.632) + (2047.632 * 0.249) = 2557.492368
(B) + GDF3 (+24.9%): (2239.5975) + (2239.5975 * 0.249) = 2797.2572775

B vs. A...+9.375%

That percentage stays the same. It's determined as you reach the Weapon Power step. Doesn't change after that.

So getting back to that insignificant gain thing...let's go with your +7.1% number.

The 4x guy does 1000 damage. The 5x guy does 1071 damage. +71 damage per 1000 damage.

The 4x guy does 10000 damage. The 5x guy does 10710 damage. +710 damage per 10000 damage.

The 4x guy does 100000 damage. The 5x guy does 107100 damage. +7100 damage per 100000 damage.

When you consider positioning, debuffs, criticals, and just everything else going on...




...with various gearing options that are available and continue to be available, there are - IMHO - far better options than having a 5th Tac Console...

Though, to be honest - if you just end up using that 5th Tac for one of your Unis...doesn't make a difference in the end.

"Wheeeee, this is kind of fun. bad."
Fleet Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
Endless, Hazari Destroyer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,649
# 46
05-03-2013, 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by ladymyajha View Post
Yet in all the math I've seen in this post
I'm confused. I haven't seen anybody doing math in this thread to support the T'varo being's uh, been quite to the contrary.

Sure, some of the folks comparing stats have been comparing incomplete stats...but the math's been about the 4x vs 5x consoles and that it doesn't mean as much as many people think. Which is "against" the argument that the 5x consoles makes the T'varo OP.

"Wheeeee, this is kind of fun. bad."
Fleet Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
Endless, Hazari Destroyer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 586
# 47
05-03-2013, 03:54 PM
Doesn't this also include an oversight? Stacking same-type damage consoles works better for ships whom are expected to deliver a constant stream of relatively potent damage; such as most fed escorts in STFs.

If you're in a warbird/raider, wouldn't you prize your spike damage ability more than sustained damage? If there's a huge diminishing impact the more you stack consoles, wouldn't you split your tac console allotment to something like 3 energy and 2 kinetic? (especially in a ship with many tactical stations so you could spread out through the subsystem cooldowns rather than being pidgeonholed into 'just' a cannon build)

Though for a T'varo I wouldn't be surprise to see a full 5x kinetic consoles to take advantage of being able to fire torpedoes out of the enhanced battle cloak... though I hear that similar build on the B'rel is not all that successful.

Last edited by umaeko; 05-03-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,394
# 48
05-03-2013, 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
if anything the other endgame ships (RA ships) need a tweak.
Here's the thing. RA ships. I think that's what people keep comparing this stuff to. And that's bad.

A fleet version of a retrofit?

That's paid money/resources for the retrofit. And paid money/resources for the ship module. OR paid money/resources for the fleet modules AND extra paid money/resources for the EXTRA fleet module.

Damn skippy that ship better be more powerful than those rinky dink 2010 end-game FREE Rear Admiral ships.

If that's how people are defining OP in terms of ship metrics, then everything since the Galaxy X is OP.

A 10 console fleet version of a retrofit ship absolutely should be better than a 9 console Rear Admiral ship like ye olde Star Cruiser. People who can't accept that have somehow missed the past three years of mudflation/power creep that this game has done in terms of ship design and progression.

My very first Rear Admiral was an engineer who flew a Deep Space Science Vessel. Guess what? That Vesta three pack I got a couple months ago? That ship's far better than the DSSV I flew in 2010.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,147
# 49
05-03-2013, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
Agreed on all counts and I am not comparing it to RA versions, I am COMPARING it to C-store and fleet ships, I was simply stating that RA ships could use a slight boost in some or other way (perhaps even just a hull and shield boost) as endgame PvE is lacking these days as it is balanced around the old ships while people play the new ones so a slight stat boost wouldn't hurt them too much and maybe add to the endgame a little and peeps in the PvP queues suffer as some people do still fly these relics and are doomed from the moment they warp in.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 317

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 11:36 AM.