How is a Vessel's Role Defined?

posted on June 11th, 2012, 5:25 pm

In a recent discussion on the Descent, there was some disagreement on the ship's role. I interpreted its attributes, passives, and special as it being meant primarily as a defensive brick; while Andre27 interprets the same data as meaning that it is a support vessel.

Obviously, there is a disconnect here, and hence this thread. What I'd like people to post is what qualities leads you to conclude that a ship is "offensive", "defensive", or "support"?

Let's avoid discussing specific ships here, except in a manner that illustrates your own thinking; rehashing arguments going on in other threads will serve no good purpose here.

Edit: As an aside, this discussion should also entirely be based on the current status quo of 3.2.6. The upcoming revised classification system of vessels will clarify what roles a given class will undertake, but as that patch is still a work in progress and some months off, I feel this conversation will still have value.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 5:55 pm

I my mind i classify a ship by what i use it for...... If i'm going to build a ship to raid, i'll build somthing i think has some offensive power... if i need to tank turrets or combat a ball of death.. i'll put out somthing i think is durrable. it all comes down to what you need to use the ship for... A descent could be either a defensive brick, or a support ship... depending on how you need it... A monsoon can tank defenses but coupled with its proxy torp it can raid effectively.. Right now ship profiles are not really empasized so many ships can have multiple roles in the game... So really it comes down to you and what yuo can squeeze out of your unit.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 6:48 pm

Thanks Styer. Can I take away from what you said that a ship's utility may not necessarily match it's inferred role? I do wonder, though, how you define a "support" role, as opposed to "offensive" or "defensive"?

It does lead me to wonder if one of the reasons some vessels are avoided is because their attributes are somewhat at odds with the ship's utility.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 7:01 pm

Indeed. A ships Dev purposed role might be completely different from the niche that it finds in a game. How ever in this patch it is truly hard to define support vessels, as many such as the leahval and the norway are powerful spell casters that are tough and do loads of damage if used right.. Defineing a support vessel is all about how its abilitys can bost your fleet or damage the enemeys.... Ships like the diamond, The Sovreign, The C-11, The S-2, The D'derix, the Qua'duj. All of those guys have powerful abilitys that can support your fleet or damage the enemeys. it just falls on the better part of micro to use them like that cuz most of the above vessels are not by nature support vessels (baring the C-11, and Qua-duj). Even the mighty diamond is not by defalt a support vessel, but nanites, Bring order to caos and holding beam... enlist it to be a powerful one. an yeah ship stats always effect mainstream use, Check C-11 for one of the most primary examples

posted on June 11th, 2012, 7:17 pm

ships are much more variable than some would believe. styer said that offensive ships are what he looks for in raiders, but the vorcha is a defensive ship, but makes a great raider, as you are confident you can cloak it out under fire with its sturdy defence. so you can leave it raiding for longer, still getting kills.

i don't think it's fully right to pigeon hole ships and label them, it's much more about what the player does with the ship.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 7:24 pm

i don't think it's fully right to pigeon hole ships and label them, it's much more about what the player does with the ship.

i was thinking this, they can have traits that match more than one. good Armour but helpful specials for example

posted on June 11th, 2012, 7:39 pm

ships are much more variable than some would believe. styer said that offensive ships are what he looks for in raiders, but the vorcha is a defensive ship, but makes a great raider, as you are confident you can cloak it out under fire with its sturdy defence. so you can leave it raiding for longer, still getting kills.

i don't think it's fully right to pigeon hole ships and label them, it's much more about what the player does with the ship.

my point exactly.. its all about how you use the ship...

posted on June 11th, 2012, 7:58 pm

Something else I'm getting from this is that a ship's special ability is being used as the primary discriminator as to what task a vessel will be used for. If this is the case, then why are specials given much greater weight compared to, say, offensive / defensive split, passive abilities, speed or firing arcs, all of which are in operation continuously compared to a special that might be fired off once every minute or two?

posted on June 11th, 2012, 8:07 pm

Something else I'm getting from this is that a ship's special ability is being used as the primary discriminator as to what task a vessel will be used for. If this is the case, then why are specials given much greater weight compared to, say, offensive / defensive split, passive abilities, speed or firing arcs, all of which are in operation continuously compared to a special that might be fired off once every minute or two?

my vorcha example doesn't consider its special

specials are worthy of lots of thought because they are often deserving of the name "special". they often do a lot of action in a short amount of time, the enemy doesn't know when you will use them, the enemy can't easily stop you using them, it requires them to work hard, the enemy doesn't always have time to think and react about special usage. They can change things up.

when you go up against a fleet of monsoons, you know that any competent enemy is almost guaranteed 1 free kill via proximity torp. this changes them a little. against sovvie you will always fear losing engines.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 11:10 pm

If you consider every special, then the Bortas might be a perfect raiding vessel. Advanced cloak, and the special itself (ion or the relay turret) will easily kill non-borg miners. But wouldn't some B'rels or K'vorts do the job way earlier and more nicely?
For me a Vorcha got good tanking capabilities (due passive and high hull hit points), high damage output, has quite a destructive special, it's a bit slow'ish, therefore it would more suit the role of all-around. (*1*)



Let's start it differently: what would you consider a defensive profile?
It's basically just a tank, something you want to get shot at. Mostly stuff that has passives that goes into that direction, a specials in addition, or vessels you prefer to lose instead of others.
Just some examples: Monsoons, (a Sovi?), K'beajQ, the D'deridex, (maybe phaste plated Rhienns), T-15, and probably vessels like the cute Bug, etc...

So for the other direction: what would you consider an offensive profile?
Vessels you don't want to lose first, due their high offensive value, possibly combined with passives / specials in the same direction. Usually fast, and heavily armed for their price.
Few examples: Defiant, K'vort, B'rel, S2, Chargh, Interecept-Scubes, etc...

And all-around vessels are then the basic units in between... and, meh, i've got no good thought on it.

Support vessels are a bit more simple:
Vessels that boost your fleet or nearby units, or do have a very specific task due their abilities. Ships that have to rely on their specials to become useful and cost efficient.
Some examples again: Canaveral, Norway, C-11, Leahvals (*2*), Qaw'Duj, the diamond (maybe), and so on.



(*1*) the Vorcha: my thought is quite simple on this: just because you can raid with it, doesn't mean it's the best way to do, or the most cost efficient / effective way - see the Bortas example above. All-around vessels of course can raid, so can defensive units if you like the unit behavior, the speed for a monsoon for an example.
Trust me, i'm an engineer, eh i mean: spammer

(*2*) Leahval and why i put it in support role. Well, it currently is, and without it's specials it's pretty much useless by cost efficiency (this includes the, sadly, free meta).
The specials go, sadly again, into every direction (+dmg with meta or reeling, + defense with reeling, +uber awesome with auto repair), and only affect itself, which makes it currently so versatile (and OP'ish in the eyes of many people). Think about the Leahval without it's specials, would you still build it?

...all of which are in operation continuously compared to a special that might be fired off once every minute or two?

I think it depends on the special. Myles already had a good example with the proxy torp. You can consider specials that grant a direct kill, or deal huge damage, as somehow "offensive", therefore the task you can do with the unit itself is quite similar. K'beajQ for an example is currently more some kind of all-around raiding vessel for me - fast, shiny damage special, medium range (better range than B'rel / K'vort to avoid SB / turret fire - easier to handle).

...Even the mighty diamond is not by defalt a support vessel,...

Correct, but not very cost efficient or useful without it's special. The specials itself are the reason why you would get them. No nanites, no order to chaos, no other shiny transmission matrix specials, and i would never build that thing.



Conclusion: a role doesn't mean it can't do anything else than it's role, it just should mean that the designated role would suit the vessel the best. Of course you can start tanking with B'rels, or raiding with Bortas, not sure if that's usually such a good idea though.

And in addition: many people seem not to play with multiple fleets, that might be a reason why vessels like Vorchas go into their one and only fleet - most don't have an extra raiding fleet as cloakers. A few early tier units would do the same task, in the meanwhile, way better in my opinion.




Edit... awww man, i just so Myles'd this topic with a wall of text...

posted on June 11th, 2012, 11:32 pm

bortas: it's only a good raider if it's natural to build. ie this is gonna be late game. if the unit is "out of the way" (meaning it takes teching to get to it from your current position) then it's probably a bad idea to build it exclusively for raiding.

just like tavara, brilliant raider, but by the time you get it, your enemy has a million sangs beating your starbase up.

vorcha: vorcha isn't most cost effective raider, but there's other considerations. as for raiding ability (not considering cost) they are up there with the best, bops have to be retreated to avoid them getting shot at (they will struggle to cloak out without dying). you have to be careful with bops and avoid putting them in situations that are too risky. vorchas are different, you can throw them into expansions and know that you'll probably be able to leave. to me vorchas and bops raid in slightly different ways, and both are good. brels can be used more effectively with lots of micro. bops are more cost effective.

now the problem with bops is that most players operate all their ships as 1 big fleet for the early/early mid game. if you build brels, they will be pathetic in fleet battles. so you'll have to operate your bops separately, as a raiding focused fleet. that leaves you with a smaller fleet battle fleet, and your enemy will get really encouraged to go all in and force a giant fleet to fleet battle. if you try always avoid this fleet on fleet stuff then you might as well have raided with all your ships (as many do). if you fight the big battle you'll lose as you spent money on a handful of ships that cant fight in this battle.

with the vorcha you can integrate this ship into fleet battles. the ship is versatile. it's the sort of ship roy hodgson would want, tough to beat and doesn't panic. much less risk if you go for vorchas, hence it being so common. it's hard to punish a player with vorchas if they make a mistake, just like it's hard to punish feds that make a mistake. using bops means you will get punished if you make a mistake.

about the leahval: if you built a leahval without specials then you failed at fleetops. the leahval is currently propped up by its specials. long term leahval spamming is not the best idea, but leahvals shine when you and your enemy have fleets with small numbers, so that the leahvals can be microd really intensively and every bit of use can be got from their specials. to me depending on specials doesn't make you a support. the leahval supports nobody but itself with its specials. it's a selfish ship. to me it's an allrounder/offence. auto repair lets it cloak out and meta lets it grab kills.

posted on June 12th, 2012, 2:03 am

You guys, this is ridiculous, great walls of text and no one invited me to play along?!

I've personally thought about this sort of thing quite a bit (ie. roles, definitions, particular things).

In general, in most things, I would advise against the use of definitions in any strict sense of the term. Forget definitions even exist, they might help you initially to get started- in understanding a given subject matter for instance, but in any thing that you want to expand and experience you have to be prepared to go beyond defined meanings. -Growth-, think of Data and is defined rigid original programming (albeit with potential to go beyond that). If he asked you, 'what is the definition of humour?' what is its role? Or "what is the definition of 'to be human' what is the role of a 'human?' Good luck trying to define that and pin it down correctly. But given the series, and the development of the character data, we can see that in various moments he might have had any number of insights over the years. In the end, being mortal (dying as he did for others) etc. friendship. maybe thats too cliche but anyways, moving on etc

What you might be looking for, if I may say, is a broader scope of understanding that deals with the various relations in whatever you are considering.

In most cases a safe bet is to look at the context of the present moment, - in game i suppose for the purposes of this thread. While in a game, there will always be present circumstances which through various relations (in this case the factions of both players, stage of game, units on the board, map lay out etc etc) will offer insights with what the best role would be for a vessel.

Doing the reverse, that is, taking a vessel and its characteristics while outside of a game, with no context, and nothing specific to relate it too, and giving that IDEA of the ship a defined role is ... well I don't know, but I would say something akin to blind leading the blind. You will forever be humming and hawing and rethinking.

A vessel's role is defined in game, with the present circumstances and context of the game, along with your intentions, and how it all flows together based on the relations of the in game narrative (what is happening in the game, what stage, bla bla bla).

For instance, I might ask chess players, what is the defined role of a bishop or knight? or any other of the pieces. Which piece is the best suited piece for attacking, bishops or knights? Well, invariably, it depends on the in game position... what is happening. Is it an open or closed position? Both have good defensive and offensive roles, potentially. Bishops pin the enemy, and knights fork the enemy. Again, it depends are you playing as white or black? Convention would say if you are white, all your pieces should begin on the offensive, and for black, should focus on defensive. At the same time, bishop and knights based on a present moment might be best to just do nothing, support, or other. Defining things is so problematic.

In looking for one answer, a definition, and to take that and bind it to a term, you install limits upon it, limits that are probably not justified.

What was that Star Wars scene that summed it up rather perfectly?

"but master yoda says to be mindful of my thoughts"

"yes, but not at the expense of the living force. keep your thoughts and feelings on the present moment"

Or whatever that exchange was between obi and qwai gon jin? in the first show when the meet for the trade dispute.

K, I think I'm done now. Roles aren't meant to be defined. They do serve in giving 'a suggestion' for use, but like for everything, most things can be played around with, and it depends on experience.