Descent - shining star or worthless hog

posted on June 11th, 2012, 10:05 am

The descent has been a subject of some debate in another topic.
Instead of derailing that topic even further i propose we discuss the Descent here.

Stats:
35 74 18 BT Medium 90 600
VeteranRank 69 140 33 9/25

Experimental Warp-In

Multi-Layer Shield Generators: Multiple shield layers allow this starship to absorb large amounts of energy without taking damage.

Shield Reset: Reset the shield-matrix of the Descent to completely restore her shield energy and the shields of all allied vessels nearby. Costs 20 supply.

Destroyed Cost = 45.5 supply

Rank5 Rank 4 gains an Extra Core: As battle-tested technology, all attributes increased by 10 and reduced the cool down of Shield Reset by 60 percent.
Rank 5 gains Battle Bridge: This vessel consumes one slot less of the Warp-In limitation.

VeteranRank Veteran gains Harmonics Burst: Lowers the shields of the Descent for 10 seconds to charge up energy in the shield generators. Once the charge up is complete, the shields return to maximum capacity and a Shield Reset is triggered, ignoring the current Shield Reset cooldown.

Overall: The descent wields a massive 74 defense, but "only" 35 offense.
The Shield Reset can restore its own shields and those of allied vessels in dogfight range, but costs 20 supply and has a timer on the recharge.

It can tip the scale of a battle by recharging the shields of a fleet or expansion, but is it worth the 4 slots and 20 supply (not counting the 45 supply loss when destroyed).

Your opinions and ideas if/how the Descent should be improved.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 2:09 pm

awesome tank. Would beat to steam roll with 2 descents. warp in close by near a bas. activates the multi-layer shields pop the starbase and done. Similar with fighting large fleets. they soak up so much damage.. they could devastate starting fleets

posted on June 11th, 2012, 4:14 pm

The Descent's stats indicate that it is meant to be a defensive monster but, due to the current autotarget priorities, it's a low priority target. It's offensive value is primarily based in its torpedoes, which can do a substantial burst of damage before a lengthy cool-down, but only face forwards. Its phaser does comparatively light damage, but it at least has 360 degree coverage.

Its fairly slow speed and primarily forward-facing firepower indicates that, if used on the offensive, it should only be committed to attacks that it at least can return safely from.

Shield reset has a very powerful effect, but it is hampered greatly by the drawbacks of very short range, a substantial supply cost, and a lengthy fixed recharge period. Applications include:

1) In a winning battle, it might be used to deny the enemy kills of weak or damaged ships they might try to get as compensation for the loss of position or substantial fleet assets.

2) In a losing battle, it might be used as a way to give valuable fleet assets a second chance of getting back to the relative safety of a repair yard.

3) In a fixed defence battle, it could be used to recharge the shields of a valuable station allowing fleet assets more time to reach the area.

All three are problematic, though. In the first two, ships have to be placed relatively close to the Descent, a relatively tricky task in the midst of managing a combat situation (what with green movement autonomy bugs, ships taking time to circle to a new position, default formation spacing, etc etc). In the third, you're leaving a powerful fleet asset at a base in case it gets attacked, and a cunning opponent can use the green movement autonomy bug to draw the ship out of position anyway.

The idea of using a Descent as a sort of "behind the lines shield repair depot" doesn't fly either, as you're leaving a powerful combat unit out of the fight; Newtons would be better for that task, if giving them shield-repair wasn't so laughably expensive on supply (74 total, the biggest jest the devs have played on Fed stock A2 players).

Never use Shield Reset in a losing fight where you're going to lose substantial fleet assets, including the Descent, regardless of its use. You're just putting yourself 20 supply in the hole.

Finally, the Descent should be the first warp-in you call. Because of its pop-gun phaser, long-recharge torpedoes, and high tier, it has a hard time gaining ranks; the earlier you call it, the longer in a match it has to gain them. Additionally, never call it to defend a crumbling position or as a solo raider; you'll just lose the ship.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 4:37 pm

While I agree that the decent will soak up damage like nobodies business, it doesn't deal out so much damage that a smart human player couldn't just ignore it.

I think it is a perfectly useful ship however. It is really awesome in AI battles, and if the enemy doesn't realize its there, in human matches it can be deadly.

posted on August 31st, 2012, 9:05 pm

Well it is always the last ship to get destroyed but I only warp in in with Starfleet Command, I don't bother to build them anymore. I focus on Defiants, Galaxies and Sovereigns (Galaxies for that triple torpedoe special which is nice when you have a group of them). I just find it pointless end game when you are going to destroy shipyards and starbases as there are more powerful ships for that purpose. It is only good early or mid game when you are still fighting it out with other ships. I usually plant a Descent in front of a mining station if I don't have any turrets there yet and it keeps the AI busy but I really don't bother moving it around the map anymore.

I don't understand why they made it so weak in the first place. You already have a build/warpin limit on them. Double the firepower, you can have two Tavara's which are in the 100s for damage and defense so why exactly would it be bad to have 3 Descents with damage and defense in the 70s or 80s?

posted on August 31st, 2012, 11:03 pm

I like the ship, but currently it seems to fit more of a niche role rather than general use. I find it good for use vs the AI. I think its future is bright. With the new profile system it will not only be the huge tank that it currently is, but will actually take the shots for other vessels(assuming that it gets the Defensive Profile). I look forward to having that option.

posted on September 1st, 2012, 12:29 am

I don't understand why they made it so weak in the first place.

Don't forget Fed is the training wheels caction, and noob Fed players needn't worry our pretty little heads about game design.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 5:08 pm

the only thing I would improve is the special costing less and have a better range.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 7:49 pm

Descent vs Tavara (since somebody brought it up).

3 DESCENT (off, def, sys) vs 2TAVARA (off, def sys)
105, 222, 54 vs 140, 138, 88 - Initial Stats
207, 420, 99 vs 208, 296, 136 - Veteran Stats

DESCENT/TAVARA Differences (off, def, sys)
-35, 84, -34 - Initial Stats
-1, 124, -37 - Veteran Stats

DESCENT/TAVARA Overall Differences
15 - Initial Stats
86 - Veteran Stats

RESULT:
2 Tavaras have more powerful weapons and more resilient systems than 3 Descents. But 3 Descents have more shield power than 2 Tavaras. Overall, 3 Descents are better than 2 Tavaras. The effect is amplified with rank. 3 veteran Descents would pulverize 2 Tavaras. While 3 initial-stat Descents would destroy 2 initial-stat Tavaras only after taking at least one loss.

---

When Tavara upgrades are taken into account:

3 DESCENT (off, def, sys) vs 2TAVARA (off, def sys)
105, 222, 54 vs 180, 218, 128 - Initial Stats
207, 420, 99 vs 248, 376, 176 - Veteran Stats

DESCENT/TAVARA Differences (off, def, sys)
-75, 4, -74 - Initial Stats
-41, 44, -77 - Veteran Stats

DESCENT/TAVARA Overall Differences
-145 - Initial Stats
-74 - Veteran Stats

RESULT:
The already powerful weapons and resilient systems on the 2 Tavaras have their firepower and system resilience greatly amplified. And with defensive capabilities now upgraded, 2 initial-stat Tavaras will decimate 3 initial-stat Descents. The initial-stat descents are now greatly in the hole as their defensive capabilities simply cannot make up for their lack of firepower. The effect though, is reduced with rank. If the 3 Descents last long enough, they may take out 1 Tavara with the other severely damaged before they [the Descents] are all destroyed. The Tavaras would win based on shield regeneration from the huge system value differences.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 7:57 pm

Funfact! The word 'decimate' is one of those commonly misused words like 'technically' or 'ironically.' The phrase, to decimate, literally means to reduce by one 10th or 10%.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Funfact! The word 'decimate' is one of those commonly misused words like 'technically' or 'ironically.' The phrase, to decimate, literally means to reduce by one 10th or 10%.

actually the meaning has changed, it did so in the 19th century. your quoted meaning is now listed as obsolete:
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate?s=t

also 'fun fact' is two words.
*pushes glasses up nose*

posted on September 27th, 2012, 9:02 pm

Funfact! The word 'decimate' is one of those commonly misused words like 'technically' or 'ironically.' The phrase, to decimate, literally means to reduce by one 10th or 10%.

actually the meaning has changed, it did so in the 19th century. your quoted meaning is now listed as obsolete:
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate?s=t

According to Webster, it still has that meaning. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate

Even the writers of Doctor Who seem to be on the fence about it since the Master, used it properly, where as someone in a more recent episode used it your way.

also 'fun fact' is two words.
*pushes glasses up nose*

You've got me there.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 9:25 pm

Take another look at both dictionaries! They both have a definition for decimate of "great destruction." I used it properly, end of debate!

posted on September 27th, 2012, 9:34 pm

According to Webster, it still has that meaning. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate

Even the writers of Doctor Who seem to be on the fence about it since the Master, used it properly, where as someone in a more recent episode used it your way.

I challenge that source, i've never used the merriam-webster dictionary, i've never even seen a print copy. i think they're just being slow to mark a definition as obsolete.

i submit 2 of the more respectable sources:

Oxford I choose you:
Oxford uses define, which mentions the old definition as "historical", it's super effective.

cambridge, go:
cambridge also uses define (what else can lexicography types do?), which doesn't even mention the old definition at all, it's super effective.

wild merriam-webster fainted.

oxford, cambridge return!



either way, as tcr says, he did use it correctly, as the new definition isn't questioned in any dictionary.

end of debate!

this is the internet, pointless debate doesn't end when you say so.

posted on September 27th, 2012, 9:41 pm

Lol Merriam Webster is a very renown dictionary.

I choose, Wikipedia!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster


Of course if you actually read the info, you will realize you aren't familiar with it is because Noah Webster was American.

(and btw, don't make me take a picture of me holding up my 4 inch thick hard copy of merriam websters from the '70s)