New Romulan vessel in progress

posted on March 18th, 2009, 9:19 pm

it isnt an issue of needed that much or can you live without it.
Certainly we can.

For the record 4 tavs as opposed to 2 isnt exactly an augmented fleet that has suddenly by virtue of the extra 2 tavs acquired the ability to now smash through all opposition.
nor is having just 1 or 2 Tavs a handicap.

Having 4 tavs as opposed to 2 hasnt made the Tav the core of any fleet.
however, if one were to consider the Romulan fleet and what a Tavara brings to is, being able to build more than we can at this time is certainly an added bonus, and one that is not swinging in any way, rather that which is more fun.

Well, honestly, I do see a difference if 4 or 2 Tavaras are flying at you. That is a 100% increase in firepower lol. While they wouldnt run over the opposition, they would create a considrable "dent" in the defences and when the rest of the Romulan fleet arrives that dent could become a humiliating defeat

Tavaras were the core of the rom fleet b4 (5 were available) and they were REALLY hard to destroy when they came at you all at once, I dont think anyone can deny that. Dunno how 4 would work, but the fact is this: Romulan players can no longer go just straight to the Tavara building, build the D'deridexes too and Norexans. And if one were to build 3 D'Deridex and 3 Norexan plus 2(1) Tavara and other smaller ships for support, that would make for a pretty impressive fleet, dont u agree

secondly a Tav is not a slow flying artillery gunship. If one were to discuss with an attempt at preening then certainly we do not need Tavs. Nor do the roms need any generix refits or norexans.
D'Deridexes and shrikes would be enough to run amok with Roms.
include battle refits for D'Deridexes and boom ure ready.

but we're talking about fleshing out a tech tree, and having 4 Tavs buildable as opposed to 2, and 2 buildable as opposed to 1 for the respective Avatars would be more fun when playing Romulan.

no one is desperate and dying for want of Tavaras... lol

Nope the Tavara is not a slow flying arty ship, but it makes as much, if not bigger, a difference on the battlefield as the almighty ( )  arty ship. If I had the choice Id choose Tavara instead of the arty every single time.

Actually all of the ships you mentioned serve a distinct role in the Romulan fleet, while the Tavara is an all-rounder - it does everything excelent and thus making such a ship (if your not borg) all but impossible to counter, the only thing your left with is send everything at it and hope it dies approach.

I also disagree that having more available Tavaras would make it more fun to play as Roms, for instance, now the roms need to mix up their high-tier units and not just build 1 unit type. This will make the players get to know the tech tree more and it will also bring more satisfaction if you win by properly countering enemy units as opposed to the the "spam these ships and send them to kill everything" approach.

A middle ground would be the 2 for helev and 4 for the other one. I dont see a spam effect here, nor does a "like to" constitute an extreme of "Im dying w/o them".
One would next apply that logic to any new ship teh mods are planning to add to any side..- "do we need them".. "are your fleets falling apart w/o them" 

As regards the repellant value - 2 dont repel much. 4 brings a little more "shitting in their pants" factor with it, while not being a spam.

Well new ship types are always welcome, I just dont like all-round ships and the Tavara is the ultimate all-rounder with a beam, 2 torps and 2 pulses - you just cant approach it with anything. Even the cube is mostly torp based, thus making it a little suckier vs smaller ships.
I Think 2 and 3 Tavaras available could work too (4 is too much), but I just dont think they should add them in unless this new restriction is unbalanced as the old one was. As for the fun argument, I think it would be fun if the Doms were able to build 5 arties, just blasting away everything, but that would unbalance the game

4 Tavaras are always going to give you more "shit in the pants" factor than 2 Tavaras lol, but I just fear they would unbalance the game again.

also - a slow defensive battleship and a fast heavy cruiser are more semantic disparities. In the end they fill practically the same role in a fleet. In fact their stats are almost the same. it's just the style with which they are to be used. so no big diff there.

I see quite a big difference there, nor are their stats similar. If I remember correctly the Caehlar defence value is a lot bigger than Eresis'. One is made for defending (long range, extremmely slow speed, high defence value) while the other is made for fast hit and run strikes (very fast, decent attack).
Seriously, they are nothing alike IMO


PS: I really dont want to have these huge arguments lol, my point is this: I wouldn't be opposed for the Tavara to be limited to 2 and 3, but only if that wouldnt disturb the balance of the game

[Anonymous]

posted on March 18th, 2009, 9:49 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on March 18th, 2009, 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, honestly, I do see a difference if 4 or 2 Tavaras are flying at you. That is a 100% increase in firepower lol. While they wouldnt run over the opposition, they would create a considrable "dent" in the defences and when the rest of the Romulan fleet arrives that dent could become a humiliating defeat

In that case the current disparity between helev and the other one which can build a whole extra Tav (which also constitutes 100% increase in firepower) would bring the need for an additional heavy cruiser for the helev avatar to the fore.
If 100% more Tav firepower is such a swing factor, then the helev avatar needs additional cruisers. that kinda negates objections that were raised in earlier posts claiming helev is just as good as the other avatar and does not need any extra heavy cruiser to compensate for the dearth of 1 Tav - which now seems to be 100% Tav less making a big diff...

Also - the dent made in the enemy fleet is not that big a deal given the Romulans develop a little slower than the other races and are many a times at a slight numerical disadvantage to the feds and klings. A dent here or there would help compensate - IMHO.

Tavaras were the core of the rom fleet b4 (5 were available) and they were REALLY hard to destroy when they came at you all at once, I dont think anyone can deny that. Dunno how 4 would work, but the fact is this: Romulan players can no longer go just straight to the Tavara building, build the D'deridexes too and Norexans. And if one were to build 3 D'Deridex and 3 Norexan plus 2(1) Tavara and other smaller ships for support, that would make for a pretty impressive fleet, dont u agree

I agree with you that this is an impressive fleet. But when faced by a fed fleet that is mostly akiras and quantum torp packing excelsiors that will outnumber you 3 to 1 in the same dev time, you will need the added firepower to survive - particularly when the generix refit althoug impressive in its own right, is no match for the akira with its special ability. And if that ability were given to the Sov it would make the sov more than a match for the norexan/d'deridexes still necessitating the Tav as a stalwart for the Rom fleet.
So this analogy is not ubiquitously applicable.

but yeah the tav spam was a pain, and if u remember, I too was with you in requesting we trim down the Tavs. Was expecting a trim down fof tavs - to say 2 or 3... Atm they're not trimmed, but neutered!

Actually all of the ships you mentioned serve a distinct role in the Romulan fleet, while the Tavara is an all-rounder - it does everything excelent and thus making such a ship (if your not borg) all but impossible to counter, the only thing your left with is send everything at it and hope it dies approach.

but that;s exactly what is happening when playing as feds and klings. most of the spam abilities of these 2 pretty much already has them ready and able to do just that to the rommie fleet and overwhelm the Tav to boot. like an army of fire ants taking on a tarantula.

I also disagree that having more available Tavaras would make it more fun to play as Roms, for instance, now the roms need to mix up their high-tier units and not just build 1 unit type. This will make the players get to know the tech tree more and it will also bring more satisfaction if you win by properly countering enemy units as opposed to the the "spam these ships and send them to kill everything" approach.

I hvent suggested that many tavs. All I have suggested are 2 and 4 over the current 1 and 2. 2 certainly isn't a spam. If we have issues with 4, then 3. But 3 isnt a spam either.

2 is already the max for the rommies. 1 more isnt going to suddenly unbalance the game - not by a long shot.

so the tactical robustness of the romulan fleet is still retained and not affected. all that is being added is a little extra bite. nothing much.

Well new ship types are always welcome, I just dont like all-round ships and the Tavara is the ultimate all-rounder with a beam, 2 torps and 2 pulses - you just cant approach it with anything. Even the cube is mostly torp based, thus making it a little suckier vs smaller ships.
I Think 2 and 3 Tavaras available could work too (4 is too much), but I just dont think they should add them in unless this new restriction is unbalanced as the old one was. As for the fun argument, I think it would be fun if the Doms were able to build 5 arties, just blasting away everything, but that would unbalance the game

agreed about the artillery. but you do agree that 2 or 3 do not unbalance the game since 2 is already available for avatar 2, and 1 more would not kill the dynamics of the game.
So the analogy with the artillery no longer withstanding, I'm glad we now see that 3 as the max would not be all that unbalancing

glad that's resolved 

PS: I really dont want to have these huge arguments lol, my point is this: I wouldn't be opposed for the Tavara to be limited to 2 and 3, but only if that wouldnt disturb the balance of the game

Me neither. And we wont need to, since we've practically corroborated each other's views.

[mimesot]

posted on March 18th, 2009, 9:54 pm

Last edited by mimesot on March 18th, 2009, 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I see quite a big difference there, nor are their stats similar. If I remember correctly the Caehlar defence value is a lot bigger than Eresis'. One is made for defending (long range, extremmely slow speed, high defence value) while the other is made for fast hit and run strikes (very fast, decent attack).
Seriously, they are nothing alike IMO

I can see that difference too. As these ship make a major diference in style, I always figure out, what my allies play and chose accordingly. But I think the difference could be worked out even further.

PS: I really dont want to have these huge arguments lol, my point is this: I wouldn't be opposed for the Tavara to be limited to 2 and 3, but only if that wouldnt disturb the balance of the game

2 and 3 Tavaras would be fine to me too, but they have to become more expensive. Yet their costs are just 20% higher but their stats around 100%. I think if costs were increased about that 100% people would think twice, if a floagship was worth it's cost and think twice, if they should build one (or 3).

posted on March 18th, 2009, 10:00 pm

would not want to see their costs go up by 100%. maybe 25% or 35%, but that;s it. Remember upgrading them costs a neat packet too.
and w/o the upgrade they're not as powerful as they should be.

posted on March 18th, 2009, 11:28 pm

But fully upgraded they have nearly 300% more power than a norexan. Considering that, the tavara upgrades are much too cheap too.

Actualy I believe that the cost should rather be more than proportional rised, compare to the stats, because you gain the chance to savly retreat with your vessel, which rises the statisical lifetime of that ship further.

As I love playing Romulans, I will not complain, if they didn't rise it, but I think it wud be fair.

posted on March 19th, 2009, 12:17 am

300% maybe. but that's why we have caps on the ships.

posted on March 19th, 2009, 1:36 am

what bout doing stuff for feds and kligns, looks like thee being left out

posted on March 19th, 2009, 1:44 am

They have their own good stuff already.

posted on March 19th, 2009, 10:57 am

@serpicus
I thought especially you didn't like that heavily restrictive caps, so I offered that solution.

posted on March 19th, 2009, 6:45 pm

the problem with high costs is that the high costs dont just serve to limit this ship, but also tend to limit the construction of the rest of the fleet.
For example if we have the Tav at 300% costs, the user will be able to construct this ship not just in a limited quantity but also at the expense of the rest of the fleet.

In the case of caps with normal resources we have the ship buildable to a limit, while the rest of the construction is not stymied.

For example i have 5000 dilithium (assuming just this for construction) if i have a tavara at 3k dilithium i can construct 1 Tav and the rest of my fleet with 2k. Here we have a cap on the tav under teh limited resources but have also ended up capping the rest of the fleet.

with teh same resource pool, if I have caps on the Tav at say 1. I construct the 1 Tav for 1050 dilithium, and am able to construct ships worth 3950k.
allowing more resources for the rest of the fleet.


So if we try to move away from caps to resource caps, resource shortages will cap the rest of the fleet as well albeit inadvertently.

that's why i was requesting just 2 or 3 (actually 4) tavs as opposed to 1 and 2 so that the romulan fleet has a little more teeth.
but I would not want to change the dynamics by rmoving the caps for such superships.

posted on March 20th, 2009, 6:54 am

For example i have 5000 dilithium (assuming just this for construction) if i have a tavara at 3k dilithium i can construct 1 Tav and the rest of my fleet with 2k. Here we have a cap on the tav under teh limited resources but have also ended up capping the rest of the fleet.

That's exactly what I intended it to be. (Iff you want a larger fleet) That ship becomes one, which is certainly not made for early building, because it would prohibit all of your fleet generation for a long whilt. So a wise player won't build one until resources are not a matter of partiular care. That's the same with the borg: Whe they finally reach priority of 100 they mostly don't need to care for resources any more, but build cubes then. Their only advantage is that they do not bear the decision, wheather to build a overweight ship or not, because it's just not buildable that early. So e highly expensive Tav is urging you to more carefully deside for one stratey.

Additionally (concerning your rest of fleet capping) it has to be questioned, whether 3 norexans or one tav is better, assuming a tavara is 3 times as expensive a  a norexan. You are not deciding for offensive or defensive power, because of 3k dilithium, youd' be able to buy the same power anyway. What ou deside is flexibility (esp. being at 3 or 1 places at once) v.s. longer expected lifetime (because a bigger ship grants larger reaction times, e.g.when retreating, than several small ones).

As it is now, you don't decide, because it's obvious, that one builds the 1-2 tav first, and then d'deridex (you will already have norexans, as they are available very early). I think it's a obvious solution that the unfairness pice-vs-power ratio is answered with that low cap. In my opinion it's more sensible to have the urge to decide between one ship, that's capable of 3 or 3 ships (concerning their overall costs and power). That includes making it have fair costs.

posted on March 20th, 2009, 10:02 pm

not so sure people will go for it.

I certainly don't .

posted on March 21st, 2009, 1:38 am

I've been working for the last week on how to solve the Tavara issue.  Hopefully in the next few days I'll be posting it, but I need to get the wording right so that everyone will understand my proposal for the new mechanic.
If all goes well, it will:
Keep Tavara stats the same.
Keep Tavara costs the same.
Extend the cap back to five Tavaras
Be all kinds of balanced.

As Scotty from the new movie would say, "It's exciting!"

posted on March 21st, 2009, 2:29 am

i will be interested to see how you will do it.

posted on March 21st, 2009, 2:46 am

Why not add a one extra Tavara  to the 1 Avitar that is lacking a little fire. the one Tavara would get a Dreadnaught up grade for the 1 Avitar that is lacking a little fire power .The upgrade would add a additional 2 weaponds array or 1 torpedo dased weaponds(say Micro torpedos) or 1 artillery ranged weapond  with a Extremely slow rate of fire.  In addition give  an extra 10 boost in the # of  marines transporting over, and ablative armor. such an  Upgrade  could boost the offensive  stats for this ship only say an extra 10 points and defensive an 10 point upgrade  with a  15-20% % penalty for speed. wich should balance things  out and  give a little bettter punch for  the tavara that has the upgrade. For the other avitar would get a Dedrix  with a artilllery ranged weopond  upgrade for one ship