Federation Glitch, or something

posted on October 15th, 2009, 10:14 pm

Considering that the Weaponrange in the tooltip is simply text, it should be possible to have the range of seperate weapons listed under the Weaponrange symbol in a similar style as the Fightercarrier/Troop Ship status. Just range, though.

The non-false advertising part of the tooltip will likely stay the same... I think weapon specific stats are going to be added to the Ship Display panel, for when you move the mouse over the weapons (I could be mistaken, though).

posted on October 15th, 2009, 11:21 pm

The current system is perfect. A ship has a weapon range, weapon types, and offensive rating. You don't need more than that.

posted on October 15th, 2009, 11:23 pm

yes.  HERE IS A THOUGHT...

can the weapon stats have SUB catagories.  phaser ratting, photon ratting, pulse phaser ratting, disruptor ratting. 

because if the current stat is a shot in the dark or an aproxamation,  lets get to specifics.  no more of this false advertising weapon stats   :thumbsup:

Weapon stats aren't false advertised. They are the closest thing to accurate you can get. As Tyler stated, weapon specific info (aka, reload time and damage amount) will be added back next patch, but the overall values are given to give you an idea of the capabilities of a vessel. The guide explains in depth what each statistic is made of

I think DarthThanatos made it very clear why the current system is in. Lots of data just makes it harder to know what a ship is actually capable of--right now all you have to keep track of is how the three types of weaponry work (which is also factored into the stats), as well as range and movement speed (which are factored into vessel cost).  ^-^

posted on October 16th, 2009, 6:57 am

The real tidbit of Offensive Value - Do not let a Negh'var close range with you.

TO STO'VO'KOR!

posted on October 16th, 2009, 5:20 pm

Dom,  how can you say its NOT false advertising.  A vessel with higher stats SHOULD BE ABLE to obliterate a vessel with lower stats.

in the example that started this thread, that is NOT the case.

either, it IS false adverstising, or the ships are mis-ranked.

i'm not a smart man, but higher number should WIN. 
its that simple

posted on October 16th, 2009, 5:27 pm

either, it IS false adverstising, or the ships are mis-ranked.

i'm not a smart man, but higher number should WIN. 
its that simple

It has been said many times that firepower isn't the only thing in the Value, there are many things to consider. It isn't that simple.

Saying it is that simple is like saying 'a Guy with a big gun will always kill a guy with a little gun, no exceptions'.

posted on October 16th, 2009, 5:31 pm

A vessel with higher offensive but lower defensive woudn't necessarilty gun douwn a ship with higher defensive and lower offensive. Plus the stats can rely on different values other than just simple damage. If you had a phaser that was slightly weaker than a sovy's but it could attack multiple ships, that increases the value. If you had a SPW that can disable systems, that can also raise value.

You have to understand baleful that it is not just plain damage, but also where it is applied. Probably if you used that SPW of the phalanx you could defeat a soveriegn because of increased amounts of phaser shots.

posted on October 16th, 2009, 5:34 pm

It's not that simple, exactly for the reasons dominus,m tyler and gamer said. Their are too many variables to account for. To boil it all down to one number, it has to work like that sometimes.

The phalanx is basically a pure anti-destroyer ship. It would easily take on the equivalent offensive value destroyer/griup of destroyers, especially since it has an aoe weapon, which definitely is not very useful against 1 sovereign.

Conversely, the Sovereign has phasers and torpedoes, both of which do full damage against the phalanx.

As far as I'm aware, I've explained enough, everyone just needs to understand this. Comment if you are uncertain on this.

posted on October 16th, 2009, 5:34 pm

Dom,  how can you say its NOT false advertising.  A vessel with higher stats SHOULD BE ABLE to obliterate a vessel with lower stats.

in the example that started this thread, that is NOT the case.

either, it IS false adverstising, or the ships are mis-ranked.

i'm not a smart man, but higher number should WIN. 
its that simple

Again, as Unleash Mayhem pointed out and described, it is not that simple. A Neghvar will lose to a Saber for instance if properly microed. You don't send your ships in willy nilly expecting them to win regardless of counters and micro. Even if all weapons did the same base damage to all units that argument would still stand. However, you still have to consider pulse based weaponry versus torpedo based weaponry, not to mention special abilities. I stand by my statement that it is absolutely not false advertising.

Stop setting up strawmen--just because something has a higher number doesn't mean it will necessarily win. This is especially true when given the balancing circumstances of Fleet Operations. The vessels in Fleet Operations are not set up as a hierarchy: to put it simply, you can't win if you simply build the most powerful unit. All the vessels have a purpose because this (Saber < Monsoon <Intrepid< Akira) is not true. That is why strategy exists. If all units were the same, but with simply higher stats than the one before it (aka, the one above would always win), it would be incredibly boring. If you want a good real world example of the numbers game, did the Soviet Union "win" in Afganistan despite higher numbers of soldiers, tanks, aircraft--you name it--then their enemies?

posted on October 16th, 2009, 6:20 pm

A vessel with higher offensive but lower defensive woudn't necessarilty gun douwn a ship with higher defensive and lower offensive. Plus the stats can rely on different values other than just simple damage. If you had a phaser that was slightly weaker than a sovy's but it could attack multiple ships, that increases the value. If you had a SPW that can disable systems, that can also raise value.

You have to understand baleful that it is not just plain damage, but also where it is applied. Probably if you used that SPW of the phalanx you could defeat a soveriegn because of increased amounts of phaser shots.

the phalanx has higher offensive AND defensive.  i WAS using the special weapon, and it still got whooped up.  i realize that there is always the 2% exception to EVERY rule, but still people.

maybe we just have to agree to DISagree. 

posted on October 16th, 2009, 6:35 pm

Well, if you use the anti destroyer special weapon, with a vessel designed to destroy destroyers, then yes it will lose to a battleship of course . The 2% rule in this case is that maybe it has a very very slim chance to win against a battleship 

posted on October 16th, 2009, 8:24 pm

I for one am glad that a ship with higher stats will not necessarily beat a ship with lower ones, this is one of the aspects that makes fleet-ops great. If this weren't the case things would get boring quick because all everyone would do is spam the highest stat ship. Fleet Ops as its name suggests is about 'Fleets' and how ships compliment and interact with each other to form attack squadrons that are far more capable than any of their individual component parts...

(EDIT: Spelling)

[Anonymous]

posted on October 17th, 2009, 2:01 am

Last edited by Anonymous on October 17th, 2009, 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that the Phalanx is more of the exception, rather than the rule.  There really aren't that many ships with higher stats that will get beaten in a 1v1 slugout with another ship.  And besides, what's with all the fuss, anyway?  No one uses the Phalanx in multiplayer, unfortunately.   This is because by the time you can make them you won't be facing as many destroyers as you will cruisers and battleships.  And since 4 or 5 Sovereigns can just fly up to as many destroyers as they want and send them packing to the Abyss with Distortion Field, you won't have to worry.

Maybe when we get Noxter (whose shipyards produce one type of ship constantly) the Phalanx will have a better role, because there will still be destroyer type Noxter still on the map.  So you see, the Phalanx does have a use!   Or at least it will in the future!

Edit:  Had to change a sentence that was bugging me.

posted on October 17th, 2009, 9:43 am

against klingons, especially taqorja ,or whatever her name is, it is pretty effective because she relies heavily on small ships , even in endgame. this way you can kill away a fleet of sangs/brels/veleqaraqh with little to no losses

posted on October 18th, 2009, 3:11 pm

some destroyers got interessting additions in the next patch, to make them a good option in endgame too. Like the ability to intercept and destroy long-range vessels quickly. Given those changes, larger destroyer-counters like the Phalanx should become more important too On the other hand, other battleships got changes too.. i think we will have to make some field tests then ;D we hurry up with completing the patch!